Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes of trauma-informed practices among K-12 educators
(USC Thesis Other)
The relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes of trauma-informed practices among K-12 educators
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE SELF-EFFICACY AND ATTITUDES OF TRAUMA-INFORMED PRACTICES AMONG K–12 EDUCATORS By Rachel K. Zaragoza A Dissertation Submitted to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August, 2022 Copyright 2022 Rachel K. Zaragoza ii DEDICATION To my son Brayden: Continue to be the “legendary leader” who brings out the best in people. Always remember that leadership is about heart. Make the space around you a safe space. Fill it with kindness, empathy, and encouragement. Never be afraid of hard work. There is a saying that “hard work pays off.” Indeed, it does; however, my hope for you is to know that hard work is not just about putting forth effort. Stay focused on your “why.” Hard work takes passion, perseverance, and tenacity. Hard work is motivated by those who inspire you the most. I love you. You are my inspiration. To my best friend, my dive buddy, my husband Bobby: I literally could not have done this without you. If I could put your name on the front of this research study, I would. Your title would be “unconditional motivator.” Although I am sure that you think that your title should be “never-ending dishwasher and laundry doer,” you deserve accolades! Through all the sacrifice and long days and nights, you were there, cheering me on. When I felt like quitting, you reminded me of my purpose. Three years is a long time, but you made it seem so simple. When imposter syndrome crept in, you were there to knock it out. A long time ago, on July 28, 2007, you shared with me about our past and your thoughts of the present. You also shared your anticipation about the future. Well, here we are in the future. Our present. I love you. You are my inspiration. To my dad: Thank you for always believing in me. Thank you for sticking up for me when my second-grade advisor said that I would be nothing but “average,” based on my test scores. I was only 10 years old. All you wanted for me was to be happy and to try my best, and so I did. I love you. You are my inspiration. iii To my mom: You instilled in me a independence and personal strength. You showed me how to be my own person. I learned from you at a very young age that education opens opportunities. I watched you as a young nursing student. You spent many long nights studying in your bedroom, which led to a thriving 30-plus-years nursing career. You encouraged me to go after what makes me happy and to do what I love, so I did. I love you. You are my inspiration. To my brother Jason: I appreciate your passion for life and your ability to see the best in people. Thank you for believing in me and reminding me that making a difference in a single life is worth all my effort. You have made a difference in my life. I love you, big brother. You are my inspiration. To my nieces, Penelope and Solidad: Always believe in the power of passion. Find something that ignites you and go for it. Academics will follow. You do not have to be the “smartest” because a test score says so. Just have heart. Dream big. Believe in yourself and, trust me, you will accomplish anything that you desire. If someone or a test score tells you, “You can’t,” rise above. I did. I love you both. You are my inspiration. To my Aunt Sandy: Thank you for believing in me. When I was accepted to USC, you shared that “Grandpa Tom would be so proud.” I think he is. I love you. You are my inspiration. To my Orange Grove students: You are my “why.” You are the real “Doctors of Education.” Como educadora ustedes me han enseñado sobre mi misma más de lo que pudiera haberme imaginado, han enriquecido mi vida para siempre. Ustedes son el motivo de este estudio de investigación. Ustedes son mi inspiración. Gracias. You have taught me more about myself as an educator than I could have ever imagined. You have enriched my life forever. This research study is because of you. You are my inspiration. Thank you. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Marsha Boveja Riggio for being my chair. Her unconditional guidance and support has been life changing. Her calm spirit assured me that everything would be OK. She encouraged me to pursue my passion, and so I did. I appreciate her help in making this a dissertation of which I am truly proud. Because of Dr. Ruth Chung, I knew that quantitative research was my calling. She was more than a committee member; she was a mentor. I could not have tackled SPSS without her guidance. She inspired me and reassured me that the challenges that I was facing were a normal part of the dissertation process. I thank her for her encouragement and support, without which I could not have succeeded. I appreciate Dr. Rufus Tony Spann’s interest in this dissertation topic, which helped me to know that I was on the right path. His feedback led me to create a more robust study. It was an honor to have him as part of my dissertation journey. I was nervous before I started my proposal defense, but Dr. A’tasha Christian was there to help reassure my confidence. In my moment of stress and fear, she helped me to feel calm so that I could deliver a dynamic proposal defense. She has been an inspiration throughout this process. Dr. Randee Kirkemo was the spark that encouraged me to pursue the doctorate. She saw something in me before I saw it in myself. Working with her for 5 years was some of the best times in my career. Her smile is contagious; her heart and passion for education make her one of the most inspirational figures in my life. I will forever be grateful for our friendship. Swati Singh is my morning buddy! I love our intellectual conversations about life, education, and anything random that sparked our neurons. Most of all, I love her passion for life v and those around her. Her energy is infectious. There is never a dull moment with Swati around. I appreciate her friendship and support on the dissertation during the past year. I cannot find the perfect words to explain how much Teresa Vasquez means to me. Her sacrifices to help me during a difficult year were monumental. I appreciate her unconditional support more than she will ever know. Being on the same team with her is a blessing. Most of all, I am grateful for her friendship. I thank Joe Antonelli for believing in me and motivating me in my toughest moments. He brainstormed research ideas with me and inspired me during our many conversations about education. He is the reason that I believe K–12 leadership has hope. As a leader, he instills confidence in those around him, bringing bring out the best in people. He listens; he motivates; he trusts his team; he creates space that makes others feel safe. He has always been there for me and has gone above and beyond to help me when I needed it most. I am forever grateful. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................4 The Achievement Gap .............................................................................................5 School Reform .........................................................................................................6 Sociopolitical Context ..............................................................................................9 The Culture of Poverty ..........................................................................................10 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................11 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................12 Self-Efficacy Theory ..............................................................................................12 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ...........................................................................13 Trauma-Informed Practices ...................................................................................13 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................15 Research Questions ............................................................................................................16 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................16 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................17 Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ....................................................................20 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................24 Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................24 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature...............................................................................................26 Search Description .............................................................................................................26 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................26 Review of Research ...........................................................................................................27 Aggregation of Data on Title I Schools in California ........................................................28 School Accountability Model ................................................................................29 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students of Color .......................................30 Educators................................................................................................................32 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy .......................................................................................35 Awareness ..............................................................................................................36 Curriculum and Instruction ....................................................................................37 Classroom Management.........................................................................................37 Student Assessment ...............................................................................................38 Cultural Enrichment and Competence ...................................................................39 Empirical Findings .................................................................................................39 Educator Self-Efficacy ...........................................................................................40 Education Debt.......................................................................................................44 Trauma-Informed Schools .................................................................................................45 vii Adverse Childhood Experiences ............................................................................46 Trauma-Informed Practices ...................................................................................47 Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed Practices ...............................................48 Educator Attitudes .................................................................................................53 Current Schoolwide Practices in CRP and TIP......................................................55 Summary of the Literature Review ....................................................................................56 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................57 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................................59 Research Design.................................................................................................................59 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................................59 Population and Sample ......................................................................................................60 Target and Accessible Population ..........................................................................60 Sample....................................................................................................................61 Sampling Method ...................................................................................................61 Recruitment Procedures .........................................................................................62 Participant Recruitment .........................................................................................63 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................63 Demographic Survey .............................................................................................65 Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale ............................................65 Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care .........................................................69 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................73 Procedures ..............................................................................................................73 Confidentiality Parameters.....................................................................................73 Data Management ..................................................................................................75 Dissemination of Findings .....................................................................................76 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................77 Descriptive Analysis ..............................................................................................77 Inferential Analysis ................................................................................................78 Inferential Reliability .............................................................................................78 Inferential Validity .................................................................................................81 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................81 Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................................82 Descriptive Analysis ..........................................................................................................82 Preliminary Analyses .........................................................................................................83 Analysis of Research Question 1 .......................................................................................88 Analysis of Research Question 2 .......................................................................................90 Analysis of Research Question 3 .......................................................................................94 Analysis of Research Question 4 .......................................................................................98 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................114 Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion, and Suggestions for Future Research................................113 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................113 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................114 viii Research Question 1 ............................................................................................114 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................116 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................118 Research Question 4 ............................................................................................123 Discussion ........................................................................................................................140 Hypothesis 1. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP Will Predict Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP .................................................................................140 Hypothesis 2.1. The Number of Training Events in CRP Attended Will Predict Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP ..............................................................141 Hypothesis 2.2. The Number of Training Events in CRP Attended Will Predict Attitudes Related to TIP .....................................................................142 Hypothesis 3.1. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP by the Degree of Implementation and Schoolwide Support for CRP ...........................................................................................................142 Hypothesis 3.2. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP by the Degree of Implementation and Schoolwide Support for CRP ......143 Hypothesis 4.1. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Years of Title I School Experience, Job Position, and Grade Level ........................................................................144 Hypothesis 4.2. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Years of Title I School Experience, Job Position, and Grade Level ...............................................................................145 Suggestions for Future Research .....................................................................................146 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................148 References ....................................................................................................................................151 Appendices Appendix A: CRTSE .......................................................................................................178 Appendix B: ARTIC-45 Instrument ...............................................................................181 Appendix C: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter .............................................184 Appendix D: Notification of Recruitment for Participants: Social Media Recruitment Letter .....................................................................................185 Appendix E: Social Media Recruitment Post .................................................................187 Appendix F: Letter of Consent for Participants..............................................................188 Appendix G: Demographics Survey ...............................................................................190 Appendix H: Permission to Use the CRTSE ...................................................................193 Appendix I: Permission to Use the ARTIC-45 ..............................................................194 Appendix J: CRTSE Factor Loadings ...........................................................................195 Appendix K: CRTSE Item-Specific Means and Standard Deviations ............................197 Appendix L: Scatterplots Showing the CRTSE Strength Index as a Predictor of Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Practices as Measured by the ARTIC .................................................................................................200 Appendix M: Mean ARTIC Subscale Score by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Title I Experience ......................................................................................201 Appendix N: Mean ARTIC Subscale Scores by Gender, Title I Experience, and Job Position ...............................................................................................203 ix Appendix O: Mean ARTIC Subscale Score by Race/Ethnicity, Title I Experience, and Grade Level ........................................................................................205 Appendix P: Mean ARTIC Subscale Score by Race/Ethnicity and Job Position ..........207 Appendix Q: Mean ARTIC Subscale Scores by Title I Experience, Grade Level, and Job Position .........................................................................................208 Appendix R: Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Differences in ARTIC Subscale Scores by Race/Ethnicity ...........................................................................210 Appendix S: Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Differences in ARTIC Subscale Scores by Gender .......................................................................................216 Appendix T: Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Differences in ARTIC Subscale Scores by Title I Experience......................................................................217 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1: California Student K-12 Accountability Data by Race/Ethnicity, English Learners, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (2018-2019) ....................................31 Table 2: Participating Educator Groups and Organizations on Facebook ...................................64 Table 3: Items Adapted for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale: Accommodations for Both Teachers and School Counselors .......................................67 Table 4: ARTIC-45 Key Subscale Variables, Reliability Scores, Item Correlations, and Definitions .....................................................................................................................71 Table 5: Inferential Analysis of Research Questions ..................................................................79 Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Demographics of Educator Participants .............................84 Table 7: Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Continuous Variables ....................................................................................................86 Table 8: Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Spearman Correlations for Ordinal Variables ..........................................................................................................87 Table 9: Item-Specific Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Responses in the Upper and Lower Quartiles ...............................................................89 Table 10: Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index as a Predictor of Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Among Title I Educators .........................................91 Table 11: Frequency Distribution of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Training and Type of Training ............................................................................................................92 Table 12: Summary of Simple Linear Regression Statistics for the Number of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Training Events Attended as a Predictor of Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Practices Among Title I Educators .................93 Table 13: Means for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index by Degree of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP Support.............95 Table 14: Means for Group Interactions Between the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self- Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index and the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation and Support ..........................................96 Table 15: Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation ..............................................................................................................97 xi Table 16: Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Support ..........................................................................................................................98 Table 17: Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Interaction Between the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation and Schoolwide CRP Support .................................99 Table 18: Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE)Scale Strength Index Scores by Race/Ethnicity ...........................................101 Table 19: Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index Scores by Job Position .......................................................................................101 Table 20: Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index Scores by Years of Experience Working in a Title I School ............................102 Table 21: Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................................................................104 Table 22: Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Score by Title I Experience and Job Position .............................................................................106 Table 23: Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Job Position .................................................................................................................107 Table 24: Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Race/Ethnicity and Grade Level ..................................................................................108 Table 25: Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Grade Level and Job Position ......................................................................................109 Table 26: Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Differences in Attitudes Related to Trauma- Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Job Position .........................................112 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: The Relationship Between Culturally Responsive Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Practices .............................28 Figure 2: Estimated Marginal Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Means by Job Position, Race/Ethnicity, and Title I Experience .................................103 xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACE Adverse childhood experience AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AI/AN American Indian/Alaskan Native ANOVA Analysis of variance AP Advanced placement ARTIC Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care AERA American Educational Research Association ASCA American School Counselor Association AYP Adequate yearly progress CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDE California Department of Education CEBC California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare CLDSOC Culturally and linguistically diverse students of color CRP Culturally responsive pedagogy CRTSE Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale DV Dependent variable EL English learner ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act FUSD Fresno Unified School District HEARTS Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools IRB Institutional Review Board IV Independent variable xiv LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District LCAP Local Control Accountability Plan MANOVA Multiple analysis of variance ME/AA Middle East/Arab American NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NCES National Center for Education Statistics NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCTSN National Child Traumatic Stress Network NH/PI Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander PBIS Positive behavior interventions and supports SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SDUSD San Diego Unified School District TIP Trauma-informed practices SED Socioeconomically disadvantaged SOC Students of color SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences xv ABSTRACT Preparing educators to work with all learners is essential to the development of student academic success yet, historically, educators have not consistently reached students of color (SOC) at the same rate as they have reached White students. With Title I schools comprising 62% of the “low- performing” schools in California, it is important to examine how current Title I educators deal with their beliefs in their ability to provide equitable practices to students who attend Title I schools. Using quantitative research design, this study examined environmental and individual factors that influence Title I educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) and attitudes related to trauma-informed practices (TIP). Specifically, using the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) scale and the Attitudes Related to Trauma- Informed Care (ARTIC) scale, this study explored the influence of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on Title I educators’ attitudes related to TIP. The study also examined the influence of CRP professional training on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP and whether belief in self-efficacy and attitudes differed by the degree of schoolwide implementation and support for CRP. Participants were 408 Title I educators who identified as a K–12 classroom teacher, a school counselor, or a split-position (teacher and counselor) educator in California. Findings showed self-efficacy beliefs in CRP to be a significant predictor of attitudes related to TIP. The number of CRP professional training sessions attended was a significant predictor of both self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. The data showed significant main effects and differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP according to gender, years of experience in Title I education, job position, and primary or secondary grade level. These findings have practical implications for K–12 leaders, in-service educators, and xvi preservice educator programs that are intended to improve the overall success and agency of teachers and school counselors who work in Title I schools in the United States. 1 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY The main goal of K–12 education is to ensure that all students receive an education that prepares them to succeed in college or a career training program because a “high-quality education is a proven path to prosperity and participation in the American Dream” (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2022, para. 5). Unfortunately, this “American Dream” is not a reality for many students of color (SOC). Hammond (2015) described the importance of education as not only to “fill students with facts and information but to help them to learn how to learn” (p. 12) so that they can become lifelong learners. Therefore, preparing educators to work with all students is fundamental to the development of student academic success. Yet, historically, educators have not consistently reached SOC at the same rate as they have reached White students (California Department of Education [CDE], 2019a). The CDE describes the achievement gap between White students and Black, Latinx, and other SOC as present before they begin school as children (CDE, 2021). This achievement gap is the persistent disparity in academic achievement between minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) SOC and their White peers (Californians for Justice, 2021; Ed Trust-West, 2021). In 2019, for the first time in 4 years, the CDE released a list of the state’s “poorest- performing” schools. The list published by the CDE contained 781 schools, 481 of which received Title I federal aid for low-income (SED) students. In other words, Title I schools accounted for the majority (62%) of the state’s schools that were deemed “lowest performing” (EdSource, 2019). California public schools serve 6.1 million students (CDE, 2021). CDE (2021) data show that approximately 3.9 million of those students are SED. In the state’s 6,600 Title I schools, the 2 concentration of SOC is overrepresented, with many Title I schools serving approximately 95% SOC, compared to 55% to 65% SOC in non-Title I schools (CDE, 2019a). The idea that every student, regardless of race or class, can and should be academically successful is not a reality for many SOC. This notion leads to the age-old seminal question, “Why are so many SOC underachieving?” With White educators dominating K–12 schools in the state (CDE, 2019b), the question arises as to whether they possess the cultural frame of reference needed to reach SOC, who are often not just culturally diverse but also linguistically diverse. According to Y. Jackson (2015), White educators are too often unaware of the fact that the connections that they choose to engage students in learning are in fact no the cultural, reflective, and familiar experiences of SOC but, as Mayor (2018) described, those of the dominant culture that are often grounded in a governmentality of meritocracy and Whiteness, leaving SOC in a state of discontent and, often, with a deep sense of frustration. Moreover, research focused on underachievement by Black and Latinx students, in comparison to White and Asian students, typically fails to consider the possible role of racial/ethnic group identity (e.g., cultural ways of being) and socialization with regard to student achievement (Delpit, 2006, 2012; King, 2010). To support these findings, several studies have shown that a critical element in successful Title I schools is the development of educators’ racial and cultural knowledge through culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP), which has been shown to help educators to connect with their students and to construct curriculum and implement instructional practices that are consistent with the needs of all learners (Gay, 2000, 2002, 2010, 2014; Gay & Howard, 2000; Howard, 2010; Sleeter, 2012). 3 CRP includes knowing the sociopolitical manifestation of how trauma disproportionality affects students from low-income communities and neighborhoods of color. Anyon (2014) described low-income communities and their schools as having been negatively affected by “decades of federal economic policies that have concentrated poverty into isolated communities, with devastating consequences for the students in those schools” (p. 14). People who live in economically disadvantaged communities are often exposed to a complex range of traumas and losses that affect individuals, families, and schools (Abramovitz & Albrecht, 2013). In this context, Blitz et al. (2020) explained how schools are left to develop creative strategies to reach and educate students who are often burdened with trauma and stress that intersect with social oppression. The degree to which a school is considered trauma informed is dependent on the everyday behavior of its educators (Baker et al., 2016), and attitudes are considered an important catalyst of behavior change. According to Quiros and Berger (2015), a trauma-informed school culture includes establishing a culturally relevant framework that includes both CRP and trauma- informed practices (TIP). In an effort to prepare culturally responsive educators, Siwatu (2007) called for more than just a knowledge base and the skillset to carry out CRP. The focus should be on the effort to prepare culturally responsive educators through strengthening their self-efficacy in executing the practices of CRP and to believe in the positive impact associated with this pedagogical approach (Siwatu, 2007, 2011). Together, this research calls for attention to self- efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who are serving in vulnerable communities. 4 Background of the Problem In 1954 the Supreme Court banned racial segregation of children in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, announcing that there should be equal education for all students (Moore & Lewis, 2014). The decision of the Supreme Court symbolized a step closer to achieving racial justice and civil rights for all, no matter the color of one’s skin. However, more than 60 years later, SOC continue to face ongoing marginalization, racial prejudice, and discrimination in their schools (Moore & Lewis, 2014). Inequality in funding, poor living conditions, and insufficient resources have become more prevalent than ever before. For example, many Black and Latinx students attend Title I schools located in low-income and underfunded neighborhoods (Moore & Lewis, 2014). Researchers Gándara and Aldana (2014) pointed out that Latinx students often face segregation and racial bias in schools because of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language barriers, which tend to be perpetuated by educators’ implicit biases and the structural racialization of the education system. Six decades after Brown, ongoing systemic institutionalized racism and inequitable distribution of opportunities remain, leaving too many SOC powerless in failing educational systems (Pendakur & Furr, 2016; Pérez Huber & Solorzano, 2015). Reardon et al. (2019) described racial segregation in schools as harmful because it concentrates SOC in economically disadvantaged communities that are, on average, less effective than schools with less concentration of SOC and SED students. This evidence is clear in the CDE’s current list of low- performing schools (EdSource, 2019). Despite efforts to remove racial segregation in schools, in California’s 6,600 Title I schools, the concentration of SOC is overrepresented, with many Title I schools serving approximately 95% SOC, compared to 55% to 65% SOC in non-Title I schools (CDE, 2019a). According to a recent report by The Civil Rights Project, close to 57% of Latinx 5 students in California attend schools where more than 90% of the students are non-White (Orfield et al., 2002). The Achievement Gap The CDE described the achievement gap between White students and Black, Latinx, and immigrant students as present before they begin school as children (CDE, 2021). Examining 8 years of data from all public schools in the United States, Reardon et al. (2019) found that racial school segregation is strongly associated with the magnitude of achievement gaps in Grade 3 and with the rate at which gaps grow from Grade 3 to Grade 12. Other research has found that, by the time SOC are 3 or 4 years old, they are already academically behind their White and Asian counterparts (Ed Trust-West, 2021). This achievement gap is the persistent disparity in academic achievement between minoritized and economically disadvantaged students and their White peers (Californians for Justice, 2021). The association of racial segregation with achievement gaps is completely accounted for by racial differences in schools that primarily serve SED students (Reardon et al., 2019). The idea that every student, regardless of race or class, can and should be academically successful is, unfortunately, not a reality for many minoritized SOC. The reality is that SOC and SED students fall into the achievement gap, not because of their race, economic status, or language differences, but because schools do not offer them adequate opportunities to “develop the cognitive skills and habits of mind that would prepare them to take on more advanced academic tasks” (Boykin & Noguera, 2011, as cited in Hammond, 2015, p. 14). Studies have shown that culturally and linguistically diverse SOC and SED students routinely receive less instruction in higher-order skills development than do their White or Asian peers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2001; Ed Trust-West, 2021; Ladson-Billings, 2006a; Oakes, 6 2005). This is important to consider because the majority of schools in the state with the largest gaps in student achievement exist in Title I schools (CDE, 2019a). What exists in these schools is not an achievement gap, but an opportunity gap perpetuated by educational inequity. To better comprehend the manifestation of educational disparities of SOC in Title I schools, it is necessary to address the historical implications of school reform. School Reform The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and signed into law by former President George W. Bush in 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). NCLB grew out of concern that the U.S. education system was no longer internationally competitive, which significantly increased the federal role in holding schools accountable for the academic progress of all students (Hursh, 2007). Special focus was placed on ensuring that states and schools closed the achievement gap between White students and SOC and, in doing so, boosted performance of SOC, who have been historically disadvantaged. States did not have to comply with the new requirements; however, if they did not do so, they risked losing federal Title I money (Hursh, 2007). In addition to monetary threats, schools had to show adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the entire student population. If schools did not make AYP for 2 consecutive years, they were identified as schools in need of improvement, better known as “program improvement” schools. Schools that failed AYP for 5 consecutive years had either to reopen as a charter school, replace all or most of the school staff, or turn over the operations either to the state or to a private company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). 7 Even more troubling, NCLB took decision making out of the hands of classroom teachers, presuming that teachers could not be trusted to assess student learning. Instead, NCLB stripped schools of their content standards, replaced them with standards that were touted as “research based,” and determined that standardized tests provided a valid and reliable means of assessing student learning. To add to the problem, pre-educator programs during NCLB focused on pedagogy that was tied to improving standardized test scores (Simpson et al., 2004). Pre-educator programs during NCLB focused on pedagogy that was tied to increasing standardized test scores (Simpson et al., 2004). NCLB was a one-size-fits-all approach to education and was viewed by many as punitive (Blankstein & Noguera, 2004; Miskel & Hoy, 2003). Unfortunately, instead of closing the achievement gap, NCLB widened it. Contributing to the achievement gap was a stronghold on curricular options for educators. NCLB required schools to choose only curricula that were approved by the U.S. Department of Education (Hursh, 2007), not materials that were believed to be best for students in that community. Such curricula lacked cultural relevance for linguistically diverse SOC, instead manifesting a cultural homogeneity in Eurocentric ideologies (Simpson et al., 2004), which ultimately created a disservice to Title I schools that primarily served SOC and students living in poverty (Hursh, 2007; Simpson et al., 2004). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law by former President Barack Obama in 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). According to Beachum (2018) ESSA represents a movement from more federal oversight to more state and local control. Emphasis was placed on development of critical thinking skills, allowing states to replace the sanctions that narrowed the curriculum. As with NCLB, accountability measures of ESSA included student achievement by test scores; however, unlike its predecessor, it included other measures of 8 achievement and growth, such as English learner (EL) progress, graduation rates, suspension rates, and overall school climate. While movement away from NCLB was ideal, ESSA is still afflicted by the problems of its forerunner. For example, SED SOC still fall behind their White and more affluent peers, according to academic indicators (McFarland et al., 2017; Reardon et al., 2019). Educators and educational leaders are still struggling to turn around low-performing schools and the educational issues that plague them, such as high school dropout rates, gang influence, and low student achievement, all of which have been linked to socioeconomic problems in local communities (Beachum, 2018). By and large, U.S. educational reform efforts have repeatedly come into conflict with other important educational values, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both NCLB and ESSA supported the notion that students should receive what they need, yet these reforms historically have omitted equitable practices, such as CRP and TIP. Equity in schools recognizes that students are sometimes treated differently and given fewer opportunities for rigorous academic achievement because of their social identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, social class, language ability). Unfortunately, as Beachum (2018) noted, educational equity efforts are often superseded by attempts at educational excellence, as seen with both NCLB and ESSA. The need for greater equity in education comes from the persistent problems of school reform that still plague the education experience of far too many SOC. Efforts to create equitable and culturally inclusive schools have been defeated by results of reform laws mandating standardized tests and state standards to regulate the school curriculum (Beachum, 2018). Before delving into the manifestation of educational disparities of SOC, it is necessary to address the difference between the sociopolitical context and the culture of poverty. 9 Sociopolitical Context According to Villegas and Lucas (2002), understanding the sociopolitical context in education is one of the most important factors for educators. Sociopolitical context is a term used to describe the series of mutually reinforcing policies and practices across social, economic, and political domains that contribute to disparities and unequal opportunities for people of color (Hammond, 2015). Ultimately, these ideologies, practices, laws, and policies cause the current structural inequality in the education sector, which results in unequal student outcomes along racial and class lines, as seen within the achievement gap. The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Equity (Kirwan Institute, 2017) stated that the two key components of the sociopolitical context are implicit bias and structural racialization. Unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that shape responses to certain groups of people are known as implicit bias (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). These attitudes and stereotypes operate involuntarily, often without one’s awareness or intentional control. According to Hammond (2015), implicit bias is rooted in neuroscience and related to the brain’s effort to process large amounts of incoming data by using shortcuts known as stereotypes. Implicit bias is based on the exposure to the dominant culture’s messages and, over time, responses to nondominant groups (e.g., SOC and the achievement gap) often go unchecked within the larger society (Kirwan Institute, 2017). On the other side of the sociopolitical context is structural racialization (Kirwan Institute, 2017). Society is a complex system of organizations, institutions, individuals, processes, and policies. Many factors interact to create a perpetual social, economic, and political structure that can be harmful to people of color and to society as a whole. Structural racialization is deeply connected to the relationship between where one lives and how location and geography affect 10 one’s access to equitable education and job opportunities, as well as other quality-of-life factors (Hammond, 2015). Reddick et al. (2020) noted that housing, education, and health care are just a few areas where the distribution of materials resources, quality of service, and access still result in opportunities being distributed along racial lines. The Culture of Poverty Ladson-Billings (2006b) suggested that the idea of a culture of poverty reinforces stereotypes of poor families, a disproportionate number of whom are families of color, as unmotivated, not caring about education, or involved in illegal activities as a lifestyle choice. There is considerable research that shows that people living in poverty are not, in fact, lazier, less likely to value education, or more likely to be substance abusers than their wealthier counterparts (Crenshaw, 2011; Duckworth, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2017; Losen, 2015; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], 2021). Yet, this implicit racial bias reinforces the notion that people of color are willingly living in poverty and/or unmotivated to change their circumstances. This deficit view ignores the contributing factors of structural racialization in society that limit a family’s economic and educational opportunities. Furthermore, the idea of a culture of poverty promotes a deficit mindset. Such a mindset defines students and their families by their challenges rather than by their strengths, suggesting that these challenges are weaknesses due to low intelligence, poor moral character, or inadequate social skills (Hammond, 2015). At its core, the culture of poverty theory defines poor people as responsible for their economic place in life because of their individual or collective deficiencies (Collins, 1988; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). Instead of recognizing the systemic inadequacies of the educational system that perpetuate the achievement gap, school reform acts have historically failed to address the origins of educational inequity among economically disadvantaged SOC. 11 Statement of the Problem Preparing educators to work with all learners is essential to the development of student academic success. Yet, historically, as Yosso pointed out in 2005, educators have not consistently reached SOC at the same rate as they have reached White students (Yosso, 2005). With Title I schools comprising 62% of the “low-performing” schools in the state, education researchers and educators must respond by evaluating how current Title I educators are feeling in terms of their own beliefs in their ability to provide equitable practices. For far too long, school reform has placed the onus on the educator’s ability to improve test scores, yet few research studies have focused on the educator’s self-efficacy and attitudes regarding equitable practices. Educators who work in Title I schools face many challenges and obstacles, compared to those who work in non-Title I schools. Title I schools in California are typically in large urban areas, which increases caseload size for educators, and the majority of educators are White, which positions them in a large learning curve to master CRP. For many Title I school educators, professional preparation programs had, at best, one or two courses on CRP, most widely known as “multicultural education” (Clark et al., 2017; Cruz et al., 2020; Hammond, 2015). Scholars have referred to multicultural teacher education research as “piecemeal” (Sleeter, 2001, p. 102), “thin, poorly developed, and fragmented” (Ladson-Billings, 1999, p. 114), and “not just a training problem, but a learning and policy problem” (Cochran-Smith, 2004, p. 295). Just as with CRP, TIP are not widely adopted by preservice educational programs (Von Dohlen et al., 2019). This leaves school districts responsible to administer the necessary training and practice for educators to be effective trauma-informed and culturally responsive educators. The three largest school districts in California are Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and San Diego Unified School District 12 (SDUSD), which serve approximately 7% of the state’s K–12 student population (CDE, 2021). According to the most recent data in the Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) of the aforementioned districts, Title I schools are focusing on CRP and TIP (FUSD, 2021; LAUSD, 2021; SDUSD, 2021). School districts across the state are spending extensive time, money, and effort to educate staff in CRP and TIP. However, data are limited regarding how effective these training events are in influencing educators’ attitudes and confidence to implement such practices. Identifying the gaps and successes in current practices of CRP and TIP can help to set the stage for future directions in education and ultimately provide a foundation for educational equity to manifest and thrive. Conceptual Framework Self-Efficacy Theory Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy defined educator efficacy and has greatly influenced educator efficacy research (Labone, 2004; Soodak et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Self-efficacy is confidence in one’s ability to succeed in a particular situation by adopting a set of beliefs that determine how well one can execute a plan of action in prospective situations (Bandura, 1977). According to Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), self-efficacy beliefs are “not a measure of skills but a belief about what one can do under various sets of conditions with whatever skills one possesses” (p. 37). Siwatu (2007) described how beliefs of self-efficacy may predict whether educators will implement CRP once they enter the classroom, not just to implement the practice for evaluation purposes but to do so because the educator believes that CRP can make a difference in students’ education. 13 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy CRP was cultivated from Gay’s (2002) work on culturally responsive teaching and the earlier work by Ladson-Billings (1992, 1994, 1995a, 1995b) on culturally relevant pedagogy. Combining both Gay’s and Ladson-Billing’s work is seen in Hammond’s (2015) research on CRP and neuroscience, which used a systematic approach to implementing CRP. In combination with the aforementioned researchers’ work on CRP, work by Siwatu (2007, 2011) and Siwatu et al. (2016) described CRP as an approach to educators’ practice that includes (a) curriculum and instructional practices that provide an awareness of culture to utilize students’ cultural knowledge, experiences, prior knowledge, and individual learning preferences as a conduit to facilitate the learning process; (b) classroom management that creates a community of learners and a learning environment to incorporate students’ cultural orientations to design a culturally compatible atmosphere; (c) student assessment that provides students information processing opportunities through multiple occasions to demonstrate what they have learned; and (d) learning partnerships through cultural enrichment and cultural competence in which students demonstrate the knowledge and skills that are needed to function in the mainstream culture, while simultaneously maintaining their cultural identity. In addition to culturally responsive self- efficacy, researchers Blitz et al. (2020) and Gherardi et al. (2020) noted the importance of developing culturally responsive trauma-informed approaches to improve school climate and education. Trauma-Informed Practices CRP includes knowing the sociopolitical manifestation of how trauma disproportionately affects students from low-income communities and neighborhoods of color. These communities and their schools have been negatively affected by decades of federal economic policies that 14 have concentrated poverty into isolated communities, with devastating consequences for the students in those schools (Anyon, 2014). According to research, TIP is one form of culturally responsive social justice advocacy due to the long-term effects of intergenerational racial trauma (Lerner, 2015; Trent et al., 2019). School-based trauma-informed programs can help to build a schoolwide foundation for understanding trauma and toxic stress, the first step in the model suggested by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA; 2014). SAMHSA refers to the 4 Rs as key assumptions in a school-based trauma-informed approach. According to SAMHSA (2014), all people at all levels of the school system must (a) have a basic realization about trauma and understand how trauma can affect students, families, and communities; (b) recognize the signs and symptoms of trauma; (c) respond by applying the principles of a trauma-informed approach to all areas of school campus functions; and (d) dissect current practices in an effort to resist re-traumatization of students. Included with the 4-Rs, SAMHSA’s (2014) six key principles that are also considered to be fundamental to a trauma-informed approach are (a) safety, (b) trustworthiness and transparency, (c) peer support, (d) collaboration and mutuality, (e) empowerment of voice and choice, and (e) cultural, historical, and gender issues. Recent studies about adopting TIP in schools show some common factors, such as changed mindsets, a systemwide approach, and increased collaboration (Baker et al., 2016; Blitz et al., 2016). The degree to which a school is considered trauma informed is dependent on the “day-to- day behavior of its personnel” (Baker et al., 2016, p. 63); attitudes are considered an important catalyst of behavior change. An educator’s attitude and beliefs about daily practices play a significant role in the success of each student and serve as an integral component in the 15 implementation and sustainability of a school-based trauma-informed program (Wiest-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). As research studies have pointed out, every educator holds a certain mindset and level of self-efficacy that directly influences their attitudes and behaviors, which ultimately directs their approaches with students (Bandura, 1997; Dweck, 2000, 2016). Purpose of the Study This study investigated the relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP among educators in K–12 Title I schools. Given the growing percentage of students with diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds in Title I schools and the population of educators predominantly representing backgrounds of White cultural norms (Ladson-Billings, 2001), educators must learn the extent to which pedagogical self-efficacy beliefs, as reflective of CRP, contribute to positive attitudes related to TIP for students of diverse backgrounds (Baker et al., 2016; Cholewa et al., 2014; Gherardi et al., 2020; Siwatu, 2007; Sleeter, 2001). Another major objective of this study was to understand not only the perceived CRP confidence of educators in working with students at a Title I school but to determine whether there is a relationship between educators’ self-efficacy in CRP and their attitudes related to TIP for their students. Mayor (2018) recommended that future research focus on school-based TIP that centers on the culturally responsive and relevant practices of educators who work with SOC and SED students, as identified in California Title I schools. Altogether, these constructs led to a framework for merging existing CRP and TIP to focus on the factors of building and sustaining educator culturally responsive self-efficacy and ideal attitudes toward students with trauma backgrounds. The empirical findings from this study provide evidence for improving Title I 16 educators’ practice, thus improving students’ opportunities to learn, particularly for those who have been least well served by traditional approaches to schooling. Research Questions This study investigated four research questions: 1. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? 2. Does the number of training events in CRP attended predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? 3. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? 4. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience in a Title I school, job position, and primary or secondary grade level among educators who work in a Title I school? Significance of the Study The educational significance of this study is quite extensive. First, this study advances the literature in the field of education on the topic of educator self-efficacy beliefs as related to CRP and attitudes related to TIP. Study findings have also improved the understanding of how educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes related to TIP are associated with effective instructional and school counseling practices in Title I schools. Results from this study support the need for educators to cultivate the self-efficacy needed to support students, especially marginalized SOC from SED backgrounds, as seen in Title I schools. Data gathered from this study highlighting educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes regarding 17 students with trauma histories provide implications for delivering TIP through a culturally responsive framework. Research findings make a significant contribution to the field of educational leadership, as results can be used to guide the work of university pre-educator programs and assist K–12 school administrators to support teachers and school counselors in CRP development. Blitz et al. (2020) found that creating a community among educators in a school helps to support CRP through educator motivation and illuminates potential sources of resistance to CRP. Findings from this research study may help educational leaders and current educators to understand the importance of CRP and how this pedagogy can act as the conduit through which TIP thrive. Without a cultural frame of reference, which CRP creates, educators struggle to connect with culturally diverse SOC (Banks, 2010; Gay, 2010, 2014; Howard, 2001, 2010). These connections with students help to cultivate relationships that are necessary for TIP to be effective. Above all, this research study makes a significant contribution to the literature by the instrumentation used to measure variables. The Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSE) and the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) instruments have had limited and varied use since their development (Baker et al., 2020; Chu & Garcia, 2014; Siwatu, 2007; Young & Young, 2021). This study expands the literature in both CRP and TIP, as it is the first empirical study of its kind to explore the relationships between Title I educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and their attitudes related to TIP. Definition of Terms Achievement gap: The persistent disparity in academic achievement between minoritized and SED SOC and their White peers. 18 Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): Various forms of physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction experienced in childhood. ACEs have been linked to premature death, as well as to various health conditions, including mental disorders. Chronic absenteeism: Missing more than 10% of the days in which the student was enrolled in school. Culturally and linguistically diverse students: Students who come from a home environment where a language other than English is spoken and where cultural values and background may differ from those of the mainstream culture. Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP): An approach to teaching and school counseling that (a) gives awareness of the three levels of culture to utilize students’ cultural knowledge, experiences, prior knowledge, and individual learning preferences as a conduit to facilitate the learning process; (b) creates a community of learners and learning environment to incorporate students’ cultural orientations to design a culturally compatible atmosphere; (c) provides students information processing opportunities through multiple occasions to demonstrate what they have learned; and (d) offers learning partnerships in which students demonstrate the knowledge and skills that are needed to function in the mainstream culture while maintaining their cultural identity. Culture of poverty: The reinforcement of stereotypes of poor families, a disproportionate number of whom are families of color, as unmotivated, not caring about education, or involved in illegal activities as a lifestyle choice. Deficit mindset: A mindset that defines students and their families by their challenges rather than by their strengths, suggesting that these challenges are weaknesses due to low intelligence, poor moral character, or inadequate social skills. 19 Educator: A teacher, school counselor, or administrator who works in K–12 education. Implicit bias: Unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that shape responses to certain groups of people due to the exposure to the dominant culture’s messages and memes; over time, responses to nondominant groups often go unchecked within the larger society. Latinx: A person of Latin American origin or descent (used as a gender-neutral or nonbinary alternative to Latino or Latina). Marginalized: A person, group, or concept treated as insignificant or peripheral. This occurs when a person or groups of people are less able to do things or access basic services or opportunities; sometimes referred to as social exclusion. Mean substitution: Replacing all missing data in a variable by the mean of that variable. Minoritized: Made subordinate in status to a more dominant group or its members. School-to-prison pipeline: Policies and practices that push school children, especially marginalized and minoritized SOC, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): Living in less favorable social and economic circumstances than others in the same society. Sociopolitical context: The series of mutually reinforcing policies and practices across social, economic, and political domains that contribute to disparities and unequal opportunities for people of color in housing, transportation, education, and health care. Stereotype threat: A person’s fear that their actions or behaviors will support negative ideas about a group to which they belong. 20 Structural racialization: A connection between where one lives and how location and geography affect one’s access to equitable education and job opportunities, as well as other quality-of-life factors. Students of color (SOC): A term used for students who identify as Black or African American, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and/or multiples of those racial identities. Title I: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) describes Title I as providing financial assistance to local education agencies for students from low-income families to ensure that all students are meeting challenging state academic standards (NCES, 2016). Title I (Part A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the ESSA of 2015, provides funding to schools with 40% or more of the student population from low-income families. Trauma-informed practices: Applied pedagogy in which all students feel safe, welcomed, and supported, and where addressing trauma’s impact on learning on a schoolwide basis is at the center of the educational mission. Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Several assumptions accompanied this research study. First, the assumption was made that participants responded to the survey items truthfully. Second, it was assumed that the instruments that were used were an accurate representation of the variables that were assessed. Third, it was assumed that self-efficacy beliefs of CRP would independently show a relationship with attitudes related to TIP. The delimitations of this study are that selected participants were classroom teachers or school counselors who currently worked in Title I schools in California. This study was 21 delimited to participants who were affiliated with organizations and groups through which recruitment took place. While the study produced several significant findings, some limitations should be considered, including study design, the COVID-19 pandemic, sample size, and instrumentation. Regarding study design, collection of data relied on educator participants’ subjective responses to a self-report survey. Study participants were recruited through convenience sampling, mainly recruiting participants who were members of social media groups of K–12 teachers and school counselors. Notably, some educators who were active in social media groups for trauma- informed and culturally responsive practices may have held favorable attitudes related to TIP and/or were believed to have high self-efficacy in CRP prior to participating in the study. Participants voluntarily completed the survey on an individual basis and self-reported regarding culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs. The anticipation of the value of CRP may have posed limitations. Self-report measures can also be limiting because various biases may influence a participant’s responses, such as social desirability or acquiescence bias (Gall et al., 2007). In addition, participants varied in age, race, school type, school experiences, and years of experience, which may have influenced their interpretation of the statements on the survey. Another limitation dealt with time constraints placed on the researcher, as well as the time of year in which data collection took place. Participants may have given varied responses based on the time frame of the data collection window (December 21, 2021, to February 1, 2022), as perceived stressors (e.g., holiday time off from work, family responsibilities around the holiday, holiday travel obligations, returning to work after winter break) may have varied among participants. 22 More notably, this study was conducted during the global COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of data collection, the majority of public school educators in California had been working remotely for more than 18 months due to state and federal quarantine mandates. The U.S. Department of Education (2021) described the COVID-19 pandemic as deepening the impact of disparities in access and opportunity facing many linguistically diverse SOC in Title I schools. Disparities in access to technology and the infrastructure required to log on and stay engaged in virtual classrooms made existing achievement gaps even more apparent. Teachers and school counselors had to adapt their practices quickly; find innovative ways to help their students to connect to online school; implement new health and safety routines, and manage the COVID- related stress of the students, their families, and colleagues, alongside their own. All of these factors combined may have influenced educators’ self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes about their ability to implement best practices. Therefore, it is important to consider this limitation when interpreting findings. Another limitation of this study was the difference in sample size among teachers, school counselors, and split-position educators. Although the study design was intentional in including school counselors and those with dual positions, only a small fraction of the school counselor population participated in the study. For generalizable findings, a sizable sample of educators from each of the three job positions was needed. There was a significant number of White female participants in comparison to male participants and participants of color. To claim generalizable findings on the self-efficacy beliefs and trauma-informed attitudes of K–12 Title I educators of color, their complex identities must also be considered. For example, although gender was measured in this study, other identities, 23 and social contexts of educators of color (e.g., educational history, multiracial identities, racial trauma, socioeconomic status, immigration status) should be considered. An additional limitation stemmed from demographic survey items for the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and the degree of schoolwide CRP support. Both items measured responses on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = none, 2 = low, 3 = somewhat, 4 = large). Participants who chose 1 or a 2 were designated as the “low” group, and those who chose 3 or a 4 were designated as the “high” group. What is a “small” or “large” degree of implementation or support may have varied from person to person, thus resulting in low reliability for both survey items. Although the instruments used to measure educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP have been empirically validated and are considered culturally sensitive tools, there are external factors to consider when analyzing the results of this study (e.g., socioeconomic status, educators’ personal K–12 experience, educational history, resources). Furthermore, no empirically robust instrument exists for school counselors to assess their self- efficacy beliefs in CRP, therefore, 16 items on the CRTSE had to be adjusted to account for both school counselors and teachers. In addition, both the CRTSE and ARTIC scales were created prior to the pandemic and therefore lacked sensitivity to the effects of the pandemic on the field of education. For example, study participants may have had difficulty in answering certain survey items that reflected on pre-pandemic practices, such as home visits and activities to increase parent involvement. Moreover, the instrument used to measure attitudes related to TIP (ARTIC), is a relatively new instrument and more research is needed to explore its appropriateness in examining U.S. Title I school educators’ attitudes related to TIP. 24 Conclusion Historically, school reform efforts have failed this nations’ students, yet SOC in Title I schools have been most impacted by reform policies. This evidence is clear in the state’s list of “poorest performing schools.” With White educators dominating classrooms, school counseling offices, and governing positions in K–12 schools, it is necessary to discover whether they have the cultural frame of reference to reach SOC in Title I schools. Not only is it imperative to inquire about such reference; it is also essential to focus on the degree of efficacy that these educators have to implement CRP. As will be shown in Chapter 2, CRP is the conduit through which schoolwide TIP thrive. A trauma-informed culture includes establishing a culturally relevant framework that includes both CRP and TIP. Gauging whether a school is trauma informed is dependent on the everyday behaviors of its educators, and attitudes are considered an important stimulus of behavior change. Together, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP are important variables in understanding where changes are needed to help educators to connect with their students and to construct curricula and implement instructional practices that are consistent with the needs of all students—especially SOC, who are too often disproportionally marginalized by a system that is supposed to enrich not just their academic development but also their social and emotional development. Organization of the Dissertation The literature review is presented in Chapter 2. The literature review begins with the examination of the aggregated data in California Title I schools. Chapter 2 also includes a review of several constructs: self-efficacy as related to teacher efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. A review of measures for these constructs, along with measures of educator training and schoolwide support for CRP and TIP, concludes Chapter 2. The methodology for 25 this study is presented in Chapter 3. The researcher provides an overview of participants’ demographics, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the main results of the study, including preliminary analyses, research questions, and post-hoc analyses. Chapter 5 presents a discussion on the results of the study, its limitations, implications for practice, and directions for future research for researchers and practitioners who wish to understand the relationship between CRP and attitudes related to TIP among K–12 Title I educators. 26 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among teachers and school counselors who work in Title I schools in California. The chapter begins with a description of the literature search process, followed by an extensive review of the literature to demonstrate the need for this research study. Search Description The review of the literature started with a Boolean search of the constructs culturally responsive pedagogy, culturally responsive practices, culturally responsive teaching, and educators. Next, the term educator was divided into K–12 teachers and K–12 school counselors. To expand further, current research on Title-I schools in California was explored, in addition to the aforementioned description. Together, this search description identified the instrument CRTSE (Siwatu, 2007). Next, the literature on culturally responsive pedagogy and trauma- informed practices was explored. To take a closer look, CRP and TIP were added to the search description, along with teachers, school counselors, and K–12 Title I schools in California. The second instrument, ARTIC (Baker et al., 2016, 2020), was discovered. Both the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments revealed the literature for the conceptual framework of this study, which includes a combination of the constructs self-efficacy theory, CRP, and TIP. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework is comprised of the constructs of self-efficacy theory, CRP, and TIP. Self-efficacy is the confidence in one’s ability to succeed in a particular situation by adopting a set of beliefs that determine how well one can execute a plan of action in prospective situations. Siwatu (2007) described how beliefs of self-efficacy may predict whether educators will implement CRP once they enter the classroom, not just to implement the practice for 27 evaluation purposes but to do so because the educator believes that CRP can make a difference in their students’ education. As the review of research will show, educators’ self-efficacy in CRP is the pathway for understanding the sociopolitical manifestation of how trauma disproportionately affects SED SOC. TIP have been shown to reduce the impact of adverse childhood experiences on students (Sciaraffa et al., 2018), as well as the additional stress experienced by educators (Cavanaugh, 2016). According to Baker et al. (2016), the degree to which a school is considered trauma informed is dependent on educators’ daily behaviors, and attitudes are considered an important driver of behavior change. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework, showing the connection between educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. Review of Research The review of literature includes four main sections. The first section examines the aggregation of data on California Title I schools, including the school accountability model, information on culturally and linguistically diverse SOC, and educators who work in Title I schools. The second section describes the importance of CRP, with special attention to educator self-efficacy as a critical variable in the practice of CRP. This section also examines the independent variable of educator training in CRP and how such training can predict educator self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. The section contains an investigation of the dependent variable self- efficacy beliefs in CRP, and how this variable may be influenced by the degree of schoolwide support and implementation of CRP. The third section explains the construct of TIP in schools and explores the dependent variable educator attitudes related to TIP. This section also examines the independent variable educator training in CRP and how such training can predict educator attitudes in TIP. The section addresses the dependent variable educator attitudes related to TIP and how this variable may be influenced by the degree of schoolwide support and 28 Figure 1 Conceptual Framework: The Relationship Between Culturally Responsive Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Practices implementation of CRP. The fourth section presents a review of current practices in CRP and TIP in California schools. The chapter ends with a summary and conclusions drawn from the review of the literature, along with an outline of the research questions and hypotheses that drove this research study. Aggregation of Data on Title I Schools in California The CDE reported that public schools in the state serve 6.1 million students in 1,037 school districts (CDE, 2021). African American/Black students make up 5.3% of all students in Self-efficacy in CRP helps to foster ideal attitudes for TIP CRP helps to breakdown external barriers • Sociopolitical Context ▪ Implicit Bias ▪ Structural Racialization • Culture of Poverty External Barriers Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Self-Efficacy Theory • Curriculum and Instruction • Classroom Management • Student Assessment • Cultural Enrichment and Competence • Professional Development in CRP • Schoolwide Implementation for CRP • Schoolwide Support for CRP • Beliefs in one’s capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). • Confidence in the ability to execute control over one’s motivation, behavior, and social environment. Attitudes for Trauma-Informed Practices (TIP) • Realization, Recognize, Respond, and Resist • Safety • Trustworthiness and Transparency • Peer Support • Collaboration and Mutuality • Empowerment of Voice and Choice • Cultural Historical and Gender Issues The Development of Self- Efficacy Beliefs in CRP 29 the state, along with 55% Latinx students, 22% White, 9% Asian, and approximately 18% identified as English language learners (CDE, 2021). Approximately 3.9 million students in the state are SED, and many students from SED families are enrolled in Title I schools (NCES, 2016). Title I schools receive additional federal funding to support students from high-poverty communities (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The purpose of Title I is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments (CDE, 2019a). In 2019, the first time in 4 years, the CDE released a list of the state’s “poorest- performing” schools (EdSource, 2019). The list published by the CDE consisted of 781 schools, 481 of which received Title I federal aid for SED students. In other words, Title I schools account for the majority (62%) of the state’s schools that are deemed “lowest performing.” This list came 5 years after the ESSA, which was put into effect due to the failing efforts of the former reform act, NCLB (Simpson et al., 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2005, 2015). Of the 481 Title I schools, 34 are charter schools and the rest are district schools or run by county departments of education. The list includes 182 elementary, 120 middle, and 38 traditional high schools. Most of the 481 low-performing schools (83%) are in districts that were identified under the state’s accountability system for comprehensive assistance for districtwide low-performing student groups (CDE, 2019a; EdSource, 2019). School Accountability Model Low-performing indicators on the CDE list include the eight factors of the student accountability model that determines student academic success: (a) standardized testing in 30 English language arts, and (b) standardized testing in mathematics, (c) advanced placement (AP) enrollment, (d) college readiness, (e) EL progress, (f) suspensions, (g) chronic absentee attendance data, and (h) high school graduation rates. These eight factors are shown in Table 1, with disaggregated data representing students’ race/ethnicity, EL status, SED classification (CDE, 2019a, 2021). According to the CDE (2019a), almost 2.5 million SED students failed standards in English language arts and mathematics. More important, close to a half-million did not graduate from high school during the 2018-2019 school year. During the same school year, almost 600,000 were chronically absent. SOC, EL, and SED students make up the majority of suspensions and those who drop out of high school. However, SOC (particularly Black students), EL, and SED students are underrepresented in AP college readiness courses, leaving them disproportionally marginalized. A review of the data in Table 1 leads to the seminal question, Why are so many low-income SOC underachieving? Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students of Color Data from the NCES show that California has the highest proportion of EL students of all states—close to one quarter of all public student ELs in the nation attend California schools, with the majority attending Title I schools (NCES, 2016). Federal legislation requires that ELs participate in language assistance programs to help them to attain English proficiency, while at the same time meeting the same academic standards that all students are expected to meet. According to Santibañez and Snyder (2018) Meeting these two goals is one of the most daunting challenges of today’s public schools. Most ELs across the nation fall behind their non-EL peers in every measure of standardized achievement (Santibañez & Snyder, 2018). 31 Table 1 California Student K-12 Accountability Data by Race/Ethnicity, English Learners, and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (2018-2019) Student Percentage of students meeting or Percentage of students meeting areas of accountability population exceeding standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (Math) ELA Math AP class Redesignated Suspended High Chronic Graduated placement fluent school absenteeism high (“College English dropout school Readiness”) Proficient Black (323,300) 33 20 3 n/a 9 15 23 76 Latinx (3,348,900) 40 27 38 n/a 4 10 14 82 Asian (567,300) 78 75 62 n/a 1 3 4 94 White (1,366,400) 66 55 22 n/a 3 6 9 89 English Language Learners (EL) (1,098,000) 12 12 1 8 4 19 13 68 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) (3,900,000) 38 27 7 n/a 5 11 15 81 Note. Students can be in more than one category: race/ethnicity, EL, and/or SED. AP = Advanced Placement. The majority of ELs in California are SOC, which makes the student population highly diverse in culture as well as language. This cultural and linguistic diversity is also apparent in the student population that is identified as SED. Altogether, the combination of factors is critical in understanding student underachievement. Several research studies have shown that this achievement gap has more to do with educator practices than with policy (Callahan, 2005; Dabach & Callahan, 2011; Estrada & Wang, 2018; Umansky et al., 2015). Studies show that culturally and linguistically diverse students of color (CLDSOC) are systematically excluded 32 from access to key core content, tracked into lower-level non-college preparatory courses in secondary school, and exposed to classroom practices that result in less opportunity to learn (Callahan, 2005; Dabach & Callahan, 2011; Estrada & Wang, 2018; Umansky et al., 2015). California schools are highly segregated. According to a recent report by The Civil Rights Project, close to 57% of Latinx students in California attend schools in which more than 90% of the students are non-White (Orfield et al., 2002). Clearly, not all Latinx students are ELs, but the proportion of ELs that are Latinx is very high (more than 80%; CDE, 2021). In Title I schools, where an overrepresentation of SOC and ELs attend, the majority of students who score proficient or above in English or Mathematics is significantly lower than in non-Title I schools where the majority of students are non-EL and White (Santibañez & Snyder, 2018). Educators Educators face many challenges in teaching and guiding the youth of today (Colvin, 2010). Educators are pressured to increase high-stakes test scores, differentiate practices and instruction for diverse learners, and do more with less time and resources (Colvin, 2010). These problems are compounded in Title I schools, which may have larger class sizes, fewer resources, and a more diverse student population (Colvin, 2010). The number of White students enrolled in California public schools has decreased over the years, compared to the increase in enrolled CLDSOC (Minkos et al., 2017). Despite this increase, the majority of educators are White. The teacher population in the state is just over 310,000 educators; 4% are Black, 22% are Latinx, 8% are Asian, and 64% are White. Among the 34,000 school counselors in the state, about 6% are Black, 25% are Latinx, 9% are Asian, and 60% are White. With White educators dominating K–12 schools in California (CDE, 2021), the 33 question arises as to whether they possess the cultural frame of reference needed to reach CLDSOC. There is a body of evidence to suggest that teachers need a specialized set of skills and dispositions to teach CLDSOC effectively (Faltis & Valdé s, 2016; Lopez & Santibañez, 2018; Santos et al., 2012) and that teacher preparation programs are not equipping new teachers with these skills (Burroughs et al., 2019; Coady et al., 2016). Compared to non-Title I schools, Anthony (2016) described Title I schools as having a higher incidence of mental health and academic concerns due to the multiple stressors placed on students and families from low- income and minoritized backgrounds. Students with emotional or behavioral difficulties can interfere with the teacher’s ability to help them to focus on the academic curriculum (Foxx et al., 2020). This disconnect of support can lead students to experience interpersonal issues with their teachers (Utley, 2012). Even more, Mayor (2018) described most teacher training programs as providing little training on general student mental health, much less specific training in TIP, which only perpetuates the disconnection of support that many CLDSOC experience. Bemak and Chung (2008) found that underachieving high school students reported the unsupportive and unchallenging school environment as a reason for dropping out. A diverse student population creates a classroom of students with a variety of learning styles and needs (Mar, 2018). However, as Mar (2018) pointed out, teachers may be unprepared to address these various learning styles, which influences the amount of classroom instruction time. This additional stress on teachers to meet the diverse needs of all of their students can lead to misconceptions about CLDSOC (Markowitz & Puchner, 2014). As Clayton (2011) pointed out, without awareness and knowledge of culturally responsive teaching methods, teachers often experience burnout, leading to schools having difficulty in retaining reputable educators. 34 As discussed in Chapter 1, the achievement gap between students could be tied to larger educational issues of systemic and sociopolitical inequalities (Perez-Gualdron et al., 2016). School counselors are in a unique position to empower students and staff and improve the overall school setting to create a culturally responsive school environment. To support the need for culturally responsive services, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) has addressed the need for advocacy and social reform in the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2016). Social justice in education can begin with school counselors, requiring them to prepare to serve as advocates and leaders capable of implementing these ASCA values in schools to reduce the achievement gap (Dixon et al., 2010). However, research has shown that some school counselors have been reluctant to take on an advocacy role by adjusting counseling practices to be more culturally responsive (Bemak & Chung, 2008). Bemak and Chung (2008) identified that school counselor reluctance stems from personal fear, being labeled as a troublemaker, lack of schoolwide implementation and support from colleagues, or job security. Teachers and school counselors play central roles in student learning. Together, they are responsible for the academic outcomes of their students, and diversity can play an influential role in those outcomes (Mar, 2018). Student diversity creates challenges in instructional and school counseling practices if educators are not confident about CRP. CRP provides the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of CLDSOC as conduits for supporting them effectively (Gay, 2002). Several studies point to the importance of educators having an asset-oriented mindset toward CLDSOC, their communities, and their linguistic and cultural resources (de Jong et al., 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b: Lucas & Villegas, 2013); and they often point to the dire need for CRP. However, little is known about how efficacious educators feel to address the 35 unique needs of CLDSOC. The diverse school environment poses unique challenges to educators, who may lack confidence due to a lack of experiences and awareness to prevent them from taking a deficit-based approach when working with CLDSOC (Y. Jackson, 2015; Y. Jackson & McDermott, 2015; Minkos et al., 2017). Educators may be entering a school unaware of their internal and external biases and the power that they hold over students from a range of backgrounds (Bales & Saffold, 2011; Keengwe, 2010). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Milner and Lomotey (2021) described cultural and racial knowledge as essential for educators to learn and develop, especially for the CLDSOC whom they serve. A critical element in supporting educators in developing racial and cultural knowledge is concerns about educators’ inability to connect with students and to construct curriculum and instructional practices consistent with the needs of diverse learners (Gay, 2002, 2010; Howard, 2010; Sleeter, 2012). According to Gay (2002), “Too many educators are inadequately prepared to teach ethnically diverse students” (p. 106). Gay presented a case for culturally responsive teaching, which is defined as using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching (Gay, 2000, 2002, 2010, 2014). Prior to Gay’s research, Ladson-Billings (1995b) declared that CRP is “just good teaching” (p. 159). Since this early research, many professional educator programs offer multicultural courses; yet, as the CDE showed in the list of low-performing schools, too many CLDSOC and SED students are disproportionately underachieving in all accountability areas (EdSource, 2019). Since the seminal work of Ladson-Billing and Gay, several education researchers have put CRP to the test (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Bottiani et al., 2018; Carter & Bedford, 2019; Cressey, 2019; Hollins, 2015). Research shows that a critical element in successful Title I 36 schools is the development of educators’ racial and cultural knowledge through CRP that helps educators to connect with their students and to construct pedagogical practices that are consistent with the needs of CLDSOC (Bottiani et al., 2018; Gay, 2010, 2014; Howard, 2010). CRP, according to Siwatu (2007), in a compilation of Ladson-Billings’s (1992, 1994, 1995a, 1995b) and Gay’s (2000, 2002, 2010) original research, is an approach to teaching and learning that focuses on (a) curriculum and instruction, (b) classroom management, (c) student assessment, and (d) cultural enrichment and competence. Together, these four practices assist educators to build the capacity necessary to set the stage for helping students to move from being dependent learners (as seen in the sociopolitical context of implicit biases, systemic racism, and a deficit mindset perpetuated by the culture of poverty theory) to self-directed, independent learners. However, prior to implementing CRP, educator awareness of positionality and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 2017) is vital for such pedagogy to thrive. Awareness Every culturally responsive educator develops a sociopolitical consciousness and understanding that we live in a racialized society that privileges some while others experience disadvantage because of race, culture, gender, class, or language (Siwatu et al., 2016). Educators with such awareness acknowledge the role that schools play in both perpetuating and challenging those inequalities. They are also aware of the impact of their own cultural lens on interpreting and evaluating students’ individual or collective behavior that might lead to low expectations or undervaluing the knowledge and skills that CLDSOC bring to school. Mastery in awareness helps educators to locate and acknowledge their own sociopolitical position, sharpen and fine tune their cultural lens, and learn to manage their own social-emotional response to student diversity (Hammond, 2015; Siwatu et al., 2017). 37 Curriculum and Instruction The area of curriculum and instruction uses students’ cultural knowledge (e.g., culturally familiar scenarios, examples, and vignettes), experiences, prior knowledge, and individual learning preferences as a conduit to facilitate the teaching-learning process (Siwatu, 2007). To employ effective curricula, instructions, programs and services, every culturally responsive educator must develop a sociopolitical consciousness and understanding that the current racialized society confers privileges on some while others experience disadvantage because of race, culture, gender, class, or language (Siwatu et al., 2016). Educators with such awareness are able to choose curricula and employ pedagogy that acknowledges the role that schools play both in perpetuating and in challenging those inequalities. This area of CRP also helps to strengthen educator practice that holds students to high standards while offering them new intellectually stimulating challenges through culturally responsive curricula and instruction. Classroom Management Culturally responsive classroom (or school counseling office) management incorporates students’ cultural orientations to design culturally compatible classroom environments (Siwatu, 2007). According to Hammond (2015), building a community of learners starts with a culturally relevant environment that feels emotionally safe for CLDSOC so that learning can thrive. According to research, educators too often think of the physical setup of the learning environment as being culturally neutral when it is often an extension of the educator’s worldview or that of the dominant culture (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Richards et al., 2006; Sleeter, 2001, 2012; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The culturally responsive educator creates an environment that communicates care, support, and belonging in ways that CLDSOC can recognize. CRP allows for community building in the learning environment by using cultural practices and orientations 38 to create a safe space that fosters intellectual risk taking, which is necessary for the development of a healthy academic identity (Hammond, 2015). Furthermore, a culturally compatible environment takes advantage of the fact that the human brain is wired for connection (Hammond, 2015). This connection creates learning partnerships that, according to Hammond (2015), help to create an authentic environment that cultivates mutual trust and respect. Educators can leverage this trust bond to help CLDSOC to escape their stereotype threats created by prior schooling experiences that included implicit biases and deficit thinking about CLDSOC (Ladson-Billings, 2006b, 2017). Student Assessment Assessment approaches that utilize CRP include providing students multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they have learned, using a variety of assessment techniques (Siwatu, 2007). Educators who are proficient in this area of CRP are also aware of the impact of their own cultural lens on interpreting and evaluating assessment methods. These educators are aware of their own individual or collective behavior that might lead to low expectations or undervaluing the knowledge and skills that CLDSOC bring to school. According to Ladson- Billings (1995a, 1995b), culturally responsive educators are the conduit that helps students to process what they are learning. Culturally responsive student assessment concentrates on knowing how to strengthen and expand students’ intellective capacity so that they can engage in deeper, more rigorous learning. Here, educators are able to mediate student learning based on what they know about each student’s cultural background and trauma history. Hammond (2015) described culturally responsive student assessment as information processing. Information processing allows educators to understand how culture affects the brain’s formation and processing, as well as engaging in practices that build on students’ brain power in 39 culturally congruent ways (Hammond, 2015). Furthermore, Ladson-Billings (1994) referred to this area of CRP as communicating high expectations. Without educators’ communicating high expectations for students, information processing, assessment, student learning cannot happen. When students are treated as competent, they are likely to demonstrate competence through culturally compatible assessment (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Cultural Enrichment and Competence The last approach to CRP embraces students’ cultural enrichment and competence. Educators provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to function in mainstream culture while helping them to maintain their cultural identity, native language, and connection to their culture. Mastery in cultural enrichment and competence helps educators to locate and acknowledge their own sociopolitical position, sharpen and fine tune their cultural lens, and learn to manage their own social-emotional response to student diversity (Hammond, 2015; Siwatu et al., 2017). Educators’ cultural competence challenges students from varied backgrounds to reach standards that are possible for them. According to Foxx et al. (2020), SOC should be receiving consistent messages that they will succeed. Empirical Findings A systematic review of the effects of CRP on student learning and achievement was published by Wah and Nasri (2019). Results from that study showed that CRP had a positive impact on students’ academic learning and achievement. Other research has shown that this pedagogy can increase student involvement in learning (Hill, 2009; Howard, 2001; Warren, 2017). For example, Byrd’s (2016) study showed that a CRP approach can improve students’ interests, grades, exploration, commitment, and self-concept of learning. In short, this approach has a positive impact on student participation in learning, as well as improving student academic 40 achievement. Moreover, previous research on CRP has shown that positive ethnic-racial identities are associated with student academic achievement, as well as the students’ persistence, which can indirectly affect students’ academic success (Gay, 2014; Hammond, 2015; Ladson- Billings, 2001, 2005). A review of the literature regarding best practices for CLDSOC found three important and broad domains of abilities and dispositions that educators of CLDSOC should develop: (a) observable specific scaffolds for linguistically diverse students; (b) educator expertise in pedagogical language knowledge and adapting curriculum and assessment materials to students’ culture; and (c) equity, family involvement, and respect for students’ cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity (H. S. Alim & Paris, 2017; Bui & Fagan, 2013; Cressey, 2019; Dee & Penner, 2017; Gay, 2002, 2004, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1999; Warren, 2017). As the literature shows, CRP would span all three domains. Educator Self-Efficacy Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy defined educator efficacy and has greatly influenced educator efficacy research (Labone, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Siwatu, 2007). Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as one’s “judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p. 3) and distinguished self-efficacy beliefs as being “not a measure of skills one has but a belief about what one can do under different sets of conditions with whatever skills one possesses” (p. 37). Ultimately, self-efficacy is a person’s belief in their ability to succeed in a particular situation by adopting a set of beliefs that determine how well they can execute a plan of action in prospective situations. Every educator holds a certain mindset and level of self-efficacy that directly 41 influences their attitudes and behaviors, which ultimately directs their pedagogical approaches with students (Bandura, 1997; Dweck, 2000, 2016). According to Bandura (1977), how an individual behaves is based more on the individual’s attitudes and beliefs than on reality. Educators’ acquirement of CRP as knowledge is not enough. Pajares (1996) described knowledge as the acquisition of skills and noted that one’s competence in a subject is an inadequate predictor of future behaviors and actions. The transfer of knowledge to action is mediated by a person’s beliefs in their abilities to put the acquired skills to use (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Siwatu (2007) developed the CRTSE to assess educators' strength of self-efficacy in CRP. At the time, little research had been done to examine preservice and in-service educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. To date, only a few empirical studies have been conducted. Siwatu’s (2007) validation study for the CRTSE was conducted on 275 preservice teachers enrolled in two teacher education programs in the Midwest. Results showed that those preservice teachers felt more efficacious in their ability to help SOC feel like important members of the classroom than they were in their ability to communicate effectively with EL students. This was an important finding because an educator’s perceived inability may be an indicator of future behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Of the 275 participants, approximately 93% were White, English-only speaking, which could have been a factor in participants’ perceived inability to communicate with EL students. Siwatu (2007) found that novice teachers believed in the positive outcome associated with CRP but at the same time doubted their ability to execute CRP. Recommendations for future research included measuring in-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP with years of experience and professional training. According to Bandura (1977), mastery experience is the most influential source of self-efficacy. Therefore, exploring the 42 relationship between years of experience and strength of educators’ self-efficacy is essential for teacher education and professional development programs to create practices that are geared toward self-efficacy development versus knowledge-based programs. Another research study using the CRTSE strength index was conducted by Fitchett et al. (2012). The pre-experimental study focused on 20 preservice teachers’ relationship between a culturally responsive teaching model in a social studies methods course to their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Of the participants, 10 were White females, 2 were Black females, and 8 were White males. Pretests and posttests were given to assess attitudes toward CRP confidence before and after an in-depth culturally responsive teaching curriculum using the 3Rs Model, Review, Reflect, and React. Posttest findings indicated that participants were more confident in their abilities to employ CRP than they were before the course. However, the effect size was minimal, indicating a significant, albeit small, effect on preservice teachers’ confidence to implement CRP. Suggestions for future research included comparing preservice and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP to both traditional and nontraditional credential pathways, as well as exploring the differences in self-efficacy beliefs between educators who work in various types of school settings (urban, suburban, rural, low-income, and high income communities). However, it is appropriate to use caution due to the small sample size and homogeneity of the participants’ race. Nonetheless, the findings warrant further observation. Researchers Chu and Garcia (2014) assessed teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and outcome expectancy beliefs in 344 special education teachers of CLDSOC in three urban school districts in the southwestern United States. Results revealed statistically significant correlations between culturally responsive self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs (p < .01). Further analysis showed that CRTSE scores were positively and significantly (p < .01) associated with 43 participants (a) with certification in bilingual education, (b) having attended a pre-educator program designed to work with diverse student populations, (c) having attended 6 to 10 or more than 10 professional development sessions (versus 1 or 2 sessions), and (d) having attended professional development training events that were focused entirely on working with a diverse group of students. Findings also indicated statistically significant differences in participants’ perceptions of self-efficacy by their perceived effectiveness of their teacher preparation program in addressing student diversity. Teacher characteristics, such as years of experience, professional training in CRP, instructional setting, and grades taught emerged as significant predictors. Recommendations for future research included increasing understanding of the relationships among professional development training in CRP, the degree of schoolwide implementation of CRP, and educator self-efficacy in implementing such practices. Siwatu et al. (2016) conducted a mixed-methods study of 685 preservice teachers’ self- efficacy doubts related to CRP. Participants resided in the southwestern United States; 72% were White and 18% identified as Hispanic. Quantitative measures included the CRTSE strength index; qualitative methods consisted of open-ended survey questions, as well as scripted face-to- face interviews. Results showed that CRTSE strength indexes ranged from moderate to completely confident in the ability to execute CRP. However, interview data showed that, in some cases, self-efficacy doubts stemmed from a general lack of knowledge regarding student diversity and CRP. Also, many participants reported a lack of exposure to CRP and opportunities to observe and practice CRP with culturally diverse students. This disconnect between coursework and field experiences may be attributed to in-service teachers’ priorities, which may not include CRP. Recommendations for future research were to explore the relationship between preservice and in-service teachers’ degree of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and schoolwide support 44 for CRP, and using the findings to strengthen preservice and in-service professional development programs. More recently, Cruz et al. (2020) conducted a study on both preservice and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Using the CRTSE strength index, 245 participants from California, Oregon, and Idaho responded to the survey. The majority of the sample was female (81%) and self-identified as White (60%), with 15% Asian, 10% Latinx, and 6% Black. Descriptive analysis aligned with Siwatu’s (2007) initial study, revealing highest mean scores in the areas that involved building trust and personal relationships with students. Lowest mean scores were in areas that involved more specific cultural knowledge, such as being able to validate students in their native language and being able to implement culturally responsive techniques and including specific cultural elements in the curriculum. Results also showed that, as years of teaching experience increased by 1, estimated mean CRTSE scores increased by 0.33 points (p < .001). The same finding was reported in a study by Rubie-Davies et al. (2012). Significant differences were discovered between the educators’ professional training experience and their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Over all, years of teaching experience and professional training in CRP had a statistically significant effect on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Furthermore, the researchers found that identifying as Latinx was positively related to self- efficacy beliefs in CRP. The researchers called for future research to focus on understanding self-efficacy beliefs in CRP of in-service teachers, especially those who serve vulnerable populations, and to use findings to improve professional development outcomes. Education Debt Above all, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP foster educators’ practice so that they can make improved pedagogical choices for eliciting, engaging, motivating, supporting, and expanding the 45 intellectual capacity of CLDSOC. Educators must recognize that their choice of pedagogy helps either to reduce or to maintain the achievement gap. When educators omit advanced cognitive skills and opportunities to students who are labeled “disadvantaged” because of their language, gender, race, or socioeconomic status, they contribute to the epidemic of dependent learners (Hammond, 2015). It is clear from the reviewed research that CRP is one of the most powerful tools for shifting the narrative of the achievement gap to placing the onus on educator practice, which is what Ladson-Billings (2006b) referred to as the education debt. Without the self- efficacy needed to implement CRP, educators of CLDSOC will continue in a struggle that has been contributing to the achievement gap for far too long. As the review of literature has shown, CRP is the conduit through which students gain the cognitive processing necessary for them to unleash their intellectual potential (Hammond, 2015). The lack of self-efficacy needed to implement such practices may be an indication of educators’ inability to bring about positive student change. Trauma-Informed Schools In addition to culturally responsive self-efficacy, researchers Blitz et al. (2020) and Gherardi et al. (2020) noted the importance of developing culturally responsive trauma-informed approaches to improve school climate and education. Moreover, CRP includes knowing the sociopolitical manifestation of how trauma disproportionality affects students from low-income communities and neighborhoods of color. These communities and their schools have been negatively affected by decades of federal economic policies that have concentrated poverty into isolated communities, with devastating consequences for the students in those schools (Anyon, 2014). 46 Discussions about the impact of trauma on learning and the need for trauma-informed schools have rapidly grown in the United States in the past decade (Jaycox et al., 2012; Overstreet & Matthews, 2011; Weist-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). People who live in financially poor communities are frequently exposed to a range of traumas and losses that affect individuals, families, and schools (Abramovitz & Albrecht, 2013). Students who arrive at school burdened with stresses associated with poverty are significantly more likely to have mental health and social-emotional challenges, even as they live in communities that typically lack adequate mental health services (Blitz et al., 2020; Petrone & Stanton, 2021). Tate et al. (2014) described limited access to mental health services as a possible contributing factor to the school-to-prison pipeline, as struggling students are sometimes punished for behavior that stems from stress and trauma, placing the onus on the schools to identify and respond proactively to student mental health needs. In this context, low-income neighborhood schools are left to develop creative strategies to reach and educate students who are often burdened with trauma and stress that intersect with social oppression (Blitz et al., 2020; Petrone & Stanton, 2021). Adverse Childhood Experiences The experience of ACEs and trauma is so pervasive that it has been called a public health epidemic (National Child Traumatic Stress Network [NCTSN], 2018). Nearly two thirds of the U.S. population reports having experienced at least one ACE, such as a loss of a parent, abuse, or domestic violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010; Felitti et al., 1998). Members of marginalized populations, including culturally and linguistically diverse populations of color and low-income communities, are at even greater risk of experiencing ACEs (Abramovitz & Albrecht, 2013; Adams, 2010; Blitz et al., 2020; Milner, 2008). The experience of ACEs is associated with long-lasting physical consequences for the brain and body (Burch et 47 al., 2010; Drury et al., 2012; Giacona et al., 1995; Harris, 2018; Lipschitzs et al., 1999; Teicher et al., 2003), as well as social, emotional, and behavioral consequences such as cognitive impairment, difficulties with executive functioning, impulse control, emotion regulation, and low self-esteem (T. N. Alim et al., 2006; Copeland et al., 2007; Harris, 2018; Van der Kolk, 2005; Van der Kolk et al., 2005). The experience of ACEs has serious negative implications for school and work functioning (Baker et al., 2020; Overstreet & Mathews, 2011). For example, Burke et al. (2011) studied 701 youth living in a low-income urban environment in California and found that the 3% who had experienced no ACEs displayed a learning or behavior problem, compared to approximately 21% of those with one to three ACEs and 51% of those with four or more ACEs. The daily challenges that result from ACEs can contribute to a downward spiral that includes additional negative and potentially retraumatizing experiences, such as being removed from class, suspended, expelled, and, in extreme cases, restrained or secluded (Hammer et al., 2011). Together, this research demonstrates a picture of cascading developmental risk that has been shown to increase exponentially the likelihood of high school dropout, incarceration, chronic physical health problems, mental illness, and premature death (Felitti et al., 1998; Porche et al., 2011). Trauma-Informed Practices As with CRP, TIP have been shown to be a viable solution to the current inequities in the field of education (Crosby et al., 2018; Ko et al., 2008). Training educators in trauma-informed approaches can reduce the impact of ACEs on students (Sciaraffa et al., 2018), as well as the additional stress experienced by educators (Cavanaugh, 2016). While all students need to experience school as a safe and welcoming environment, students who are managing stress and 48 trauma also need schools that support healing and resiliency as they learn and grow (Anderson et al., 2015; Bloom, 1995; Cole et al., 2013; Cole et al., 2005). Although these struggles can be found in rural, urban, and even suburban communities, low-income communities, often with greater ethnic and cultural diversity, tend to be disproportionately affected by chronic stress and trauma, making the schools in those communities uniquely challenging (Milner, 2008). TIP in schools has the potential to help students who are affected by ACEs and trauma to feel safe, recover from trauma, and regain developmental trajectories (SAMHSA, 2014). Trauma-informed approaches are methods that realize the impact of trauma and recognize possible paths for recovery; recognize the signs of trauma; integrate knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices; and aim to prevent re-traumatization (Cavanaugh, 2016; Jennings, 2007). A trauma-informed framework emphasizes strong relationships with adults and peers; the ability to self-regulate behaviors, emotions, and attention; success in academic and nonacademic areas; and physical and emotional health and well-being (Dorado et al., 2016; Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools [HEARTS], 2021; SAMHSA, 2014). Trauma-informed approaches also benefit students who have not experienced traumatic events, as all students can benefit from feelings of safety and positive connections to the school. TIP are inherently inclusive of all, while recognizing that some are especially vulnerable to the impact of ACEs and trauma (Massachusetts Advocates for Children & Harvard Law School, 2013). Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed Practices Thomas et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of TIP in schools across the United States. Of the 33 empirical studies analyzed, only 4 included a culturally responsive component. Given the reviewed literature on CRP, this finding is concerning. TIP in schools that fail to 49 center equity and culturally relevant ways of knowing become, as Simmons described, as “White supremacy with a hug” (2020, as cited in Duane et al., 2021, p. 6). Therefore, educators of CLDSOC must be proficient in CRP in order for TIP to be relevant and effective for a diverse student population. Researchers Santiago et al. (2018) implemented the Bounce Back trauma intervention in urban elementary schools in Illinois from 2013 to 2016. Participants reflected the current California demographics of students in Title I schools (93% Latinx, 93% SED, 53% EL). The intervention was delivered by existing school-based clinicians, who reported satisfaction with the program and training; however, they also reported difficulties in implementing the intervention due to factors such as time, competing schoolwide academic demands, and challenges with involvement by school staff (particularly teachers). Behaviors by teachers, the largest stakeholders at a school site, related to TIP are vital for student success. Recommendations for future research included understanding how school staff involvement in TIP relates to successful outcomes for students and teachers. Through a social work lens, Quiros and Berger (2015), performed a literature review on TIP in schools in the United States. Recommendations for TIP in schools included shifting to a trauma-informed school culture that includes establishing a culturally relevant framework for creating both natural and agency uplifting environments that are emotionally and physically safe and promoting trustworthiness, choice, and collaboration. These are particularly important because understanding and supporting students’ cultures, in combination with trauma-informed interventions, are directly linked to student achievement (Quiros & Berger, 2015). Quiros and Berger’s review supported the need for the current research study. Educators’ confidence in their 50 ability to implement CRP is the direct means through which culturally responsive TIP are delivered. Foxx et al. (2020) published one of the very few papers exploring a culturally responsive approach to school counseling. They posited that CRP can begin with school counselors, requiring their preparation to serve as advocates and leaders capable of implementing a comprehensive culturally responsive school counseling program. To support the need for these services, ASCA has addressed the need for culturally responsive advocacy and social reform in its national model, which is a framework that consists of content standards and objectives (ASCA Mindsets and Behaviors) for the school counseling profession (ASCA, 2016). Unlike teachers, school counselors are trained in positive, strengths-based methods of identifying students in need of support in the areas of academic, college/career, and social/emotional development. Due to this unique position, school counselors must be culturally responsive practitioners. Currently, no research studies have been published that evaluated school counselors’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and how such practice may predict counselors’ attitudes related to TIP. Since school counselors are advocates and mentors for both students and teachers, the current study was designed to identify how the identified variables relate to school counselors in Title I settings. Crosby et al. (2018) reviewed current and emerging models of trauma-informed teaching, connecting them to the goals of social justice education and providing practical strategies for implementing such practices in middle schools and classrooms. The most effective models embedded CRP in classrooms and schoolwide practices, including discipline protocols, classroom management, home-school connection, and the general culture of the environment. Implications for practice included assessing school staff behaviors and attitudes in executing TIP 51 and providing resources and support for educators so that TIP are culturally relevant and responsive. Hoover et al. (2018) evaluated the effectiveness of a California statewide implementation of an evidence-based trauma intervention in schools. Discussion points centered on the need for TIP in schools to align with mental health promotion activities in the broader community and to extend school programs to students’ home environments. This home-school connection is one of the main tenets in CRP. Hover et al. discussed the importance of having a strong leadership that is grounded in collaboration across all stakeholders. Having colleagues who are implementing the same practice and supporting one another has been associated with educators' likelihood of continued implementation. This finding helps to justify the current inquiry into educators' account of the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and CRP support and how this partnership, or lack thereof, affects their self-efficacy and attitudes related to CRP and TIP. Gherardi et al. (2020) conducted a critical analysis of TIP and social justice in schools. They found that current research and practice around TIP in schools are “largely decontextualized, with the complex intersectional and sociocultural realities of student experiences either overlooked or viewed from a deficit orientation” (p. 494).. This decontextualization places trauma-informed schools at risk of maintaining some of the deficit- based systems and practices that they seek to override. The researchers contended that measures of staff attitudes toward trauma, responses to student behavior, and overall school climate reflect critical intermediate outcomes for trauma-sensitive schools. While the full impact of professional training in TIP on educators has yet to be established, Gherardi et al. (2020) called for future research to examine the nature and magnitude of changes in staff attitudes related to TIP, as well as the impact of these changes on practices. 52 Mayor (2018) conducted a thorough literature review on TIP in schools in the United States and Canada. Mayor recommended that schools not adopt TIP that focus on grit, resilience, posttraumatic growth, or “keep it at the door” discourses or interventions but to seek programing that defines trauma outside of the aberrant event or abuse/neglect dichotomies and instead deploys a definition and practice that considers the intergenerational historical and racialized institutional experience of harm that reproduce a racist and classist society. Mayor suggested that, in order to do this, CRP must be the conduit through which TIP are executed. Doing so will shift whitewashed TIP, as described by Thomas et al. (2019), into practices that offer hope and healing through naming of the sociopolitical context and structural racialization to finding ways to connect to students with alternative forms of healing and community building (Mayor, 2018). Mayor (2018) highlighted a general lack of understanding of educators’ perspectives and behaviors regarding TIP in schools that serve vulnerable communities. Future research recommendations included centering the needs of racialized and SED students through the ways in which educators are implementing TIP. In order to understand how well TIP are thriving in a school setting that serves these students, it is important to mention that the majority of TIP publications do not report empirically robust studies (Maynard et al., 2019). A meta-analysis of TIP in schools was conducted by Maynard et al. (2019). Of the 67 studies analyzed, they found no rigorous evaluations of TIP in schools. They found no studies that centered on SOC or other vulnerable student groups. This is concerning, given the increased efforts at the local, state, and federal levels to make school systems trauma informed. There are even explicit provisions for TIP in the current school reform act, ESSA. With Title I schools in California leading the list of low-performing schools, TIP in schools, as with all schoolwide practices, should be implemented using CRP (Mayor, 2018). Nevertheless, the adoption of TIP 53 in schools is growing rapidly and the need for a robust instrument to evaluate TIP in schools has been established by Baker et al. (2020). Educator Attitudes Baker et al. (2020) created a psychometrically robust instrument known as the ARTIC. A new instrument, the ARTIC provides a data-driven analysis of TIP in schools and its effectiveness by measuring educators’ attitudes related to TIP. The degree to which a school is considered trauma informed is dependent on the “day-to-day behavior of its personnel” (Baker et al., 2016, p. 63), and attitudes are considered an important catalyst of behavior change. Research indicates that TIP training has the potential to increase staff knowledge and create changes in attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to TIP implementation, especially in systems that are supportive of the trauma-informed framework (Baker et al., 2016). Consequently, an educator’s attitude and beliefs about teaching and learning play a significant role in the success of each student (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Pajares, 1996). The ARTIC validation study involved 1,395 participants: 507 health providers and 888 educators from 17 settings in the United States and Canada. Most participants were White and female (76%), and the majority were between the ages of 25 and 34 years (42%) or 35 and 44 years (24%). Of the educators, approximately 21% were teachers and 12% were school administrators. Results indicated that internal consistency reliability was excellent (α = .93). The seven domains measured by the ARTIC were somewhat correlated, indicating that they shared some overlapping variance but also measured unique aspects of attitudes related to TIP. More notable findings included that educators who identified favorable system support for TIP on the ARTIC not only rated themselves as having more self-efficacy to implement TIP but also rated their school as more trauma informed. 54 Findings in the literature echo the necessity of a good support system between colleagues (McIntyre et al., 2019). Recommendation for future research using the ARTIC scale should include a broader representation of education staff. The implementation of TIP in schools is relatively new and there has yet to be a research study to evaluate school-based TIP using a psychometrically robust instrument. It is clear from the reviewed literature that educator attitudes are an integral component in the implementation and sustainability of a school-based TIP program (Wiest-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). Therefore, the current study was designed to explore several factors that may affect educators’ attitudes related to TIP, such as the degree to which CRP is implemented, the degree to which educators feel supported, and the number of professional training events attended. To date, there have been no published empirical studies using the ARTIC scale. Chapter 3 provides a thorough review of the instrument’s initial reliability, validity, and scoring. In general, studies about educator attitudes have been well established. However, research studies concerning educator attitudes related to TIP are limited. Purtle (2020) performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies that evaluated trauma-informed interventions that included staff training. One of the objectives was to identify the effectiveness of staff training on attitudes and behaviors following the training. Of the 14 studies evaluated, five assessed staff knowledge and attitudes directly following the training. However, nine studies followed up after 2 weeks to 1 month, suggesting that a longer duration between professional training and follow-up analysis is needed. Over all, the review indicated that staff attitudes and behaviors related to TIP improved following training, but the extent of that improvement was not determined. Recommendations for future studies included analyzing staff attitudes related to TIP through the use of reliable instruments to assess trauma-informed 55 attitudes and behaviors and to extend follow-up from 1 month to 6 months and 1-year evaluation periods. Current Schoolwide Practices in CRP and TIP Before the question, “Why are so many students of color underachieving?” can be answered, an examination of student supports and services in several school districts must be analyzed. After careful review of the LCAP of the three largest school districts in California (FUSD, LAUSD, and SDUSD), it is clear that CRP and TIP are being implemented. LCAP is a 3-year plan for local educational agencies to set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to meet those goals to improve student outcomes (CDE, 2021). LAUSD, SDUSD, and FUSD are the largest districts in California in terms of student enrollment. In total, these three districts serve approximately 7% of the state’s K–12 student population. In a combined analysis of the three districts’ LCAP goals from 2015 to 2021, with a focus on CRP and TIP, it is clear that many efforts have been made to implement such practices (FUSD, 2021; LAUSD, 2021; SDUSD, 2021). Among the three school districts, CRP goals included student support services for ELs and other programs assisting CLDSOC (e.g., African American Student Conference, Black Student Unions, Latino Student Ambassadors, Student Equity Coalitions). All LCAP goals of the three districts cited culturally responsive educator training, as well as staff education in anti- racism, social justice, and equity. Family outreach and the creation of family support teams were mentioned in only one of the three districts. The development of an Ethnic Studies course was also mentioned, but again in only one of the three districts. Furthermore, the hiring of Climate and Culture Specialists to provide educators with professional learning to improve practices for high-need students was described as a high priority in each of the three school districts. 56 Collectively, school districts stated specific CRP goals, highlighting the implementation of practices and services to identify gaps and to support services for students with the greatest need. In doing so, each district pledged to equip educators with data and tools to illuminate areas of disproportionality, with the goal of creating an equitable environment for diverse students. TIP goals in the three school districts included trauma-sensitive schools training, along with staff training in restorative practices, social-emotional learning, and positive behavior interventions and services (PBIS). In addition, each district outlined the need for an increase in mental health support staff, such as school counselors, social workers, child welfare specialists, and therapists. Only one of the three districts mentioned the need for a Youth Advocacy Team to ensure that all schools in the district were safe and inclusive environments for all students to thrive, with an emphasis on vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, EL students, and SOC. Together, the CRP and TIP goals stated for LAUSD, SDUSD, and FUSD show the disconnect between knowing what works and putting pedagogy into action to yield ideal student outcomes. While the districts’ LCAP goals are aligned with best practices and current research in education, too many of the Title I schools in these districts are disproportionately overrepresented in the CDE’s list of “low-performing” schools (EdSource, 2019). Summary of the Literature Review The academic experiences and challenges faced by CLDSOC have been well researched and documented. However, not enough attention has been placed on educators’ experiences as measured by their level of self-efficacy and attitudes regarding educational practices for diverse students. With the continued achievement gap and marginalization of CLDSOC, it is important to pay close attention to the factors in the school environment and the educators who work there. 57 Factors would include educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and their day-to-day attitudes toward TIP. As this review of literature has shown, self-efficacy may predict whether educators will implement CRP and do so because they believe that CRP can make a difference in their students’ education. From the literature review, it is evident that school districts are training educators in CRP and TIP; however, how confident educators feel to implement such practices has yet to be determined. What is known is that knowledge and action are mediated by a person’s beliefs in their abilities to put the acquired skills to use (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Attitudes are considered an important catalyst of behavior change, and attitudes play a significant role in the success of each student. Every educator has a certain mentality and level of self-efficacy that directly influences their attitudes and behaviors toward students and their behavior, which, as this review pointed out, is based more on their attitudes and beliefs than on reality (Bandura, 1977, 1997; Dweck, 2000, 2016). Ultimately, this chapter provides the foundation to conduct this research study, using the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments. Research Questions and Hypotheses This study investigated the following research questions: Research Question 1. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy beliefs in CRP will predict educators’ attitudes related to TIP. Research Question 2. Does the number of training events attended in CRP predict self- efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? 58 Hypothesis 2.1. The number of training events in CRP will predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Hypothesis 2.2. The number of training events in CRP will predict attitudes related to TIP. Research Question 3. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 3.1. There is a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. Hypothesis 3.2. There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. Research Question 4. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience in a Title I school, job position, and primary or secondary grade level among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 4.1. There will be a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Hypothesis 4.2. There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. 59 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY By means of a quantitative nonexperimental research design, participants’ survey responses were analyzed to predict possible relationships between culturally responsive self- efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP among teachers and school counselors who currently worked in a K–12 Title I school in California. The methodology for this study is described in this chapter, divided into several sections. The first section includes an explanation of the research design, followed by a restatement of the research questions and hypotheses that drove this study. Next, the population, sample, and sampling methods are fully explained. Afterward, recruitment procedures are explained, leading to a description of the instruments used in the study. The final sections describe the procedures for data collection and analysis. Research Design The researcher utilized a nonexperimental correlational research design to explore the relationships between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes related to TIP among teachers and school counselors who currently work in a K–12 Title I school in California. Unlike a true experimental design, which searches for causation of one variable over another by randomly assigning participants to either an intervention or control group, a nonexperimental model omits variable manipulation and participant randomization and excludes causal inferences (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Research Questions and Hypotheses This study investigated the following research questions (RQ) and hypotheses (H 𝑎 ): RQ 1. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 1. Self-efficacy beliefs in CRP will predict educators’ attitudes related to TIP. 60 RQ 2. Does the number of training events attended in CRP predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 2.1. The number of training events in CRP will predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. H 𝑎 2.2. The number of training events in CRP will predict attitudes related to TIP. RQ 3. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 3.1. There is a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. H 𝑎 3.2. There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. RQ 4. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience in a Title I school, job position, and primary or secondary grade level among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 4.1. There will be a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. H 𝑎 4.2. There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Population and Sample Target and Accessible Population The target population was educators in the United States currently working in a Title I school. The accessible population was educators in California who were currently working in a K–12 Title I school. 61 Sample The sample participants were educators in California who were currently working in a Title I school. The number of teachers and school counselors who work in a Title I school in California is approximately 108,000 (NCES, 2021). To determine the probability that the null hypothesis could be rejected (Salkind, 2017), a power analysis was conducted to determine the model sample size from the population (108,000). A power analysis combines statistical testing and subject area knowledge to assess the probability that the researcher will find a statistically significant difference. A power analysis can help to determine the probability that the null hypothesis can be rejected (Salkind, 2017). Findings from the power analysis, with a 95% confidence interval (CI), yielded an ideal sample size of 383 or more to be 95% confident that the real value would be within ±5% of the measured value. Sampling Method The sampling methods that were employed were convenience, purposive, and simple random sampling. Convenience sampling method is defined as accessing a sample of participants that are most accessible to the researcher (Salkind, 2017). This sampling strategy was used when choosing educator participants in southern California because the researcher lives and works in California as an educator in a Title I school. A purposive sampling method is essential when the researcher selects individuals who are judged to possess or represent desired characteristics or who have had experiences that the researcher wishes to investigate (O’Dwyer & Bernauer, 2014). The researcher for this study used purposive sampling by selecting educators on the basis of two specific criteria: (a) an in-service teacher or school counselor, and (b) currently teaching or practicing school counseling in a Title I school in California. 62 Recruitment Procedures The researcher employed various methods to complete all necessary procedures. First, requests for consent to use the instruments—CRTSE scale (Appendix A) and ARTIC scale (Appendix B)—were sent to the copyright holders. Next, once the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Southern California (Appendix C), the researcher sent a recruitment letter via social media (Appendix D) to various educator organizations and educator group administrators, requesting that the online survey be sent to their members. Once access was granted by social media group and organization administrators, the researcher created a post (Appendix E) on each group page, inviting members to participate in the study. The survey was created and administered via the Qualtrics™ (2020) online platform. Each social media post included a link to the online survey. Directly after participants clicked on the survey link, they were provided an informed consent letter (Appendix F) outlining the purpose of the study, procedures for completion, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality, and rights as participants. Following consent and prior to taking the online survey, two qualification questions were presented to ensure external validity in that sample participants were representative of the study population. Two qualification questions were presented in a yes/no answer format: (a) Are you an educator (teacher or school counselor) that is currently working in a California public school? (b) Are you an educator (teacher or school counselor) that is currently working in a Title I school in California? Participants were then able to access the survey, which included 13 demographic questions and the CRTSE and ARTIC-45, for a total of 98 survey items. The burden of time to complete the survey was approximately 10 to 15 minutes. To maintain the confidentiality of participants, only the researcher had access to the dataset. 63 As an incentive for completing the survey, participants were given the opportunity to enter a raffle to win one of ten $50 Amazon gift cards. At the end of the survey, participants were provided an external link to a separate form to enter their email address for the raffle. The email addresses of participants were stored separately from survey responses. A total of 143 participants (44.2%) provided an email address to be eligible for the gift card raffle. At the completion of the study, 10 participants were randomly selected and awarded the gift card via email. The names of the winners were not revealed to the researcher and participant email addresses were deleted once the raffle was complete. Participant Recruitment Educators who were currently working as teachers or school counselors in a Title I school in California were recruited through social media during an 8-week period in December 2021 to February 2022. Public educator organizations and private educator group pages on Facebook were targeted for recruitment. Public group membership on Facebook is immediate, and all posts and discussions are public. Private groups have qualifying questions that are reviewed by group administrators prior to membership approval. All posts and discussions are kept private within the group page only. Permission was granted by each group administrator prior to posting for recruitment. Table 2 shows participating social media educator groups and organizations where recruitment took place. Instrumentation Quantitative inquiry consisted of three data collection points in the survey. The survey was divided into three sections: (a) demographics questions (Appendix G), (b) CRTSE (Appendix A), and (c) ARTIC survey (Appendix B). Permission to use the instruments was 64 Table 2 Participating Educator Groups and Organizations on Facebook Members as Group Status of 12/22/21 American School Counselors’ Association Public 62,188 California Continuation Education Private 612 California Educators United Private 1,900 California Teachers Association Private 2,900 California Teachers Empowerment Network Private 6,100 The California Association of School Counselors Public 2,500 Caught in the Middle School Counselors Private 21,300 California State University, Long Beach Alumni Public 2,600 School Counselor Support Group Private 3,900 Dissertation Support Group Private 3,600 Dissertation Survey Exchange Private 6,200 Elementary School Counselor Exchange Private 32,000 High School Counselors Connection Private 11,000 K–8 School Counselor Network Private 9,000 Maslow Before Bloom (Education, Trauma, Mental Health) Private 9,200 School Counselors Connect Private 21,400 School for School Counselors Private 5,700 Solution Focused School Counseling Private 5,800 Teachers Ask Teachers Private 174,100 Teachers Helping Teachers Private 67,300 The Elementary School Counselor Private 9,200 Trauma Informed Educators Network Private 28,700 Trauma-Informed Schools GROUP Private 9,600 University of Southern California Alumni in Orange County Public 1,500 University of Southern California Alumni in San Diego Public 1,900 University of Southern California SC Trojan Family…United We Stand…Fight On USC!!! Private 5,100 Total Total 505,300 Note. Total number of members includes educators that live and work outside of California. The recruitment post included the two criteria for participating, (a) must be an in-service teacher or a school counselor in California, and (b) educators must currently work at a Title I school in California. This criterion was also stated in the Letter of Consent before participants could access the survey. Group page member information did not include where each educator resides nor any other demographic data. 65 obtained (Appendices H and I). Prior to responding to the survey, participants were provided an informed consent letter and notified that all survey responses would remain confidential. Demographic Survey The demographic survey was designed to collect participants’ demographic and professional background information. This portion of the survey included 13 items regarding the participant’s age, racial/ethnic and gender identity, years of experience in a Title I school, current position at the school site, credential type, professional training in CRP and TIP, degree of schoolwide CRP and TIP implementation, and participant’s beliefs regarding schoolwide support for CRP. Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale The CRTSE strength index scale elicited information from participants regarding their efficacy to execute specific practices and tasks that are associated with educators who have adopted CRP (Siwatu, 2007). Each of the 40 items asks participants to rate how confident they are in their ability to engage in specific culturally responsive practices (e.g., “I am able to identify the diverse needs of my students”) by indicating a degree of confidence ranging from 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident). Higher scores indicate more confidence in the respondent’s ability. To place emphasis on such a large range, Bandura (2001) contended that self-efficacy scales should contain a variety of items that vary in degree of difficulty. Varying the level of difficulty avoids a ceiling effect and sheds light on the types of tasks in which educators are confident. The CRTSE contains educator practices along the easy-to-difficult continuum. Development of the CRTSE was driven by three factors underlying culturally responsive educator preparation and educator efficacy research (Siwatu, 2007). First, many inquiries into the efficacy beliefs of educators had focused on their perceived confidence to be instructionally 66 effective, manage effective learning environments, and influence student learning (Siwatu, 2007). At the time the CRTSE was developed, little research had been conducted to examine educators' culturally responsive self-efficacy. Second, the growing theoretical concerns about existing measures of educators’ sense of efficacy fueled the need to construct a theoretically grounded instrument. The CRTSE was constructed based on Bandura’s (1977) theoretical guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales. Third, due to the increased efforts to prepare culturally responsive educators, development of the CRTSE has provided program administrators and teacher and school counselor educators a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of their program (Chu & Garcia, 2014; Cruz et al., 2020; Fitchett et al., 2012; Siwatu, 2007, 2011; Siwatu et al., 2016). An extensive review of the literature did not reveal an empirically based instrument designed to measure school counselors’ culturally responsive self-efficacy. Since school counselors are educators who design a comprehensive school counseling curriculum; teach counseling-based classroom lessons; assess students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; and engage with students’ families, they must be culturally responsive in their practices. For the purpose of this study, the CRTSE was administered to both teachers and school counselors; 16 of the 40 items were adapted to accommodate both groups. Table 3 shows the 16 original CRTSE items that were adapted for this study; Table 3 shows items adapted for the CRTSE accommodations to account for both teachers and school counselors. Reliability Reliability analysis of the CRTSE is substantially high, with a Cronbach’s = .96 (Siwatu, 2007). Other research studies using the CRTSE (Chu & Garcia, 2014; Cruz et al., 2020; Fitchett et al., 2012; Siwatu et al., 2016) have reported strong reliability ( = .96). 67 Table 3 Items Adapted for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale: Accommodations to Account for Both Teachers and School Counselors Original items from Siwatu (2007) Items adapted for this study (1) Adapt instruction to meet the needs of my students. Adapt instruction (or counseling programs and services to meet the needs of my students. (7) Assess students' learning using various types of assessments. Assess students' learning (or attitudes, behaviors, or academic needs as a part of a counseling program) using various types of assessments. (11) Use a variety of teaching methods. Use a variety of teaching (or counseling) methods. (12) Develop a community of learners when my class consists of students from diverse backgrounds. Develop a community of learners when my class (or counseling sessions) consists of students from diverse backgrounds. (17) Teach students about their cultures’ contributions to science. Teach students about their culture’s contributions to science (or counsel students about their cultures’ contributions to science). (19) Design a classroom environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures. Design a classroom (or counseling office) environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures. (23) Identify ways that standardized tests may be biased towards linguistically diverse students. Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards linguistically diverse students. (25) Structure parent-teacher conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents. Structure parent-educator conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents. (27) Revise instructional materials to include a better representation of cultural groups. Revise instructional (or counseling) materials to include a better representation of cultural groups. (28) Critically examine the curriculum to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. Critically examine the curriculum (or counseling program) to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. (29) Design a lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics. Design a teaching/counseling lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics. (30) Model classroom tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding of the tasks. Model classroom (or school counseling) tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding of the tasks. (32) Help students feel like important members of the classroom. Help students feel like important members of the classroom (or counseling sessions). (33) Identify ways that standardized tests may be biased towards culturally diverse students. Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards culturally diverse students. (39) Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups. Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups during a classroom lesson or as part of a school counseling session. (40) Design instruction that matches my students’ developmental needs. Design instruction (or counseling programs) that matches my students’ developmental needs. 68 Validity The ability of self-efficacy beliefs to predict future behavior and performance is dependent on whether the instrument closely corresponds with the criterial task (Bandura, 1977, 1986). In the context of CRP, the criterial task would reflect specific culturally responsive educator competencies. Bandura (2001) contended that self-efficacy scales should contain items that vary in their degree of difficulty (magnitude). Varying the level of difficulty avoids a ceiling effect and sheds light on the types of tasks in which participants are confident. The CRTSE contains educator practice items along the easy-difficult continuum. According to Pajares et al. (2001, as cited in Siwatu, 2007, p. 1090), “Bandura’s assertions about the use of a scale with many options is empirically grounded. The 0–100 response format of the CRTSE was proven to be psychometrically stronger compared to traditional Likert scales.” Scoring Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses are recommended in scoring the CRTSE (Siwatu, 2007). Item-specific mean responses are better able to identify which competencies should be better emphasized during educator training. While item-specific responses are potentially more informative, global scores allow for use of more inferential analyses. As recommended by Siwatu (2007), the researcher in the current study analyzed both item-specific responses and total scores. Item-specific responses were analyzed and presented as descriptive data. Participants’ mean scores and standard deviations for each item allowed for diagnostic understanding of the specific aspects of CRP in which participants felt efficacious or unsuccessful. Participants’ responses to each of the 40 items were summed to generate an overall CRTSE strength index score. The index score is a quantitative indicator of the strength of each 69 educator’s CRTSE beliefs. Higher CRTSE scores indicated more confidence in the ability to implement CRP. Maximum possible total score is 4,000 (40 items with the highest possible score of 100 for each item). CRTSE Factor Analysis In a validation study, Siwatu (2007) conducted a factor analysis from a sample of 275 response sets. Scores ranged from 2,270 to 3,970. Factor analysis showed that “the principal component factor analysis varimax rotation of the 40 items yielded seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 67% of the variance in the respondents’ scores on the scale” (Siwatu, 2007, p. 1092). Factor solutions were examined and it was determined that a one-factor solution accounted for 44% of the total variance explained, which, as the author remarked, is “somewhat lower than average factor analysis studies” (Henson & Roberts, 2001, as cited in Siwatu, 2007, p. 1092). Altogether, CRTSE factor loadings ranged from .39 to .79 (Siwatu, 2007). Appendix J reports the factor loadings for each item on the CRTSE. Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care The ARTIC scale (Appendix D) is a relatively new measure. To date, it does not have well-established norms based on a large national representative sample. The ARTIC was co- developed by researchers at Tulane University and the Traumatic Stress Institute. The ARTIC validation study was published in 2020 (Baker et al., 2020). Most recently, the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC; 2021) added the ARTIC to their list of evidence-based measurement tools for child welfare. The ARTIC received an assessment rating of “A–Psychometrics Well Demonstrated,” the highest rating offered by the CEBC. The ARTIC is the only measure of trauma-informed care listed by the CEBC. 70 For the purpose of this study, the word care in the phrase trauma-informed care was replaced with practices to differentiate between care received from medical personnel and practices as pedagogy driven by educators. The ARTIC consists of three separate instruments: the ARTIC-45, the ARTIC-35, and the ARTIC-10. The ARTIC-45 was recommended by Baker et al. (2020) for preliminary research studies that are intended to assess overall attitudes to TIP in a particular group. Therefore, the ARTIC-45 was used in this study. The ARTIC-45 can be used as a benchmark prior to training and as a summative measure following professional development on TIP. In this study, the ARTIC-45 was used as an overall measure of attitudes, given the mention of TIP in the LCAP goals of the three largest school districts in California. The ARTIC-45 includes 45 items with a 7-point bipolar Likert-type response scale containing trauma-informed favorable statements on one end and trauma-informed unfavorable statements on the other end. There are seven subscales, with response choices 1 (the low end of what a respondent ‘believes’) to 7 (the high end of beliefs). For Subscales 6 and 7, items are also on a bipolar Likert-type scale; however, for these sections the scale ranges from 1 to 8 (not applicable). Reliability Test-retest reliability for the ARTIC was calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Test-retest correlations of the ARTIC-45 were strong, with correlations of .84 at 120 days, .80 at 121–150 days, and .76 at 151–180 days (Baker et al., 2016). Internal reliability of the ARTIC-45 was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha and revealed an internal consistency reliability as excellent ( = .93; Baker et al., 2016). Subscale alphas ranged from respectable to very good, with the lowest reliability associated with reactions to the work ( = .71) and the highest reliability with self-efficacy and personal support ( = .75). Table 4 shows the 71 ARTIC-45 subscale variables, subscale item correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha from the original study and subscale definition (Baker et al., 2016). Table 4 ARTIC-45 Key Subscale Variables, Reliability Scores, Item Correlations, and Definitions Subscale variable Survey items (total) Definition (1) Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, and 31 (7) .73 Measures participants beliefs about student behaviors and symptoms being seen as adaptations and malleable versus behavior and symptoms that are intentional and fixed (2) Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, and 32 (7) .73 Measures participants beliefs about relationships, flexibility, kindness, and safety as the agent of change versus rules, consequences, and accountability as the agent of behavior and symptom changes (3) On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy and Control) 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, and 33 (7) .72 Measures participants empathy-focused behaviors versus control-focused behaviors (4) Self-Efficacy at Work 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, and 34 (7) .75 Measures feelings of being able to meet the demands of working with a traumatized population (5) Reactions to the Work 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 (7) .71 Measures participants appreciation for the effects of secondary trauma/vicarious traumatization and coping by seeking support versus minimizing the effects of secondary trauma and coping by ignoring or hiding the impact (6) Personal Support of Trauma Informed Care 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44 (5) .75 Measures participants feelings of internal support of, and confidence about implementing trauma-informed practices versus concerns about implementing trauma-informed practices (7) System-Wide Support of Trauma Informed Practices 37, 39, 41, 43, and 45 (5) .74 Measures participants feelings of system-wide support for trauma-informed practices verses not feeling supported by colleagues or administrators 72 Validity The only validity data available on the ARTIC-45 is from the initial validation and evaluation study of the instrument. While this poses a definite limitation, preliminary data showed promise. Baker et al. (2016, 2020) described validity indicators as analyzed using Pearson correlation to provide initial support for construct and criterion-related validity. The composite scores varied slightly by demographic characteristic, such that female, racial/ethnic majority, better educated, and more experienced participants, and those participants who had less face-to-face contact with students/clients had ARTIC scores more favorable to TIP (Baker et al., 2016). The seven subscale domains were shown to share some overlapping variance; however, this also accounted for the unique aspects of trauma-informed attitudes, with the lowest correlation between subscales (2) responses to problem behavior and (7) symptoms and system- wide support for TIP (r = .25), and the highest correlation between subscales (1) underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, and (2) responses to problem behavior and symptoms (r = .69). Respondents working in human services and health care had more favorable scores for TIP than those working in schools. The ARTIC-45 composite scores were strongly related to personal familiarity with TIP (r = .34 to .45) and most staff-level indicators of TIP implementation (r = .30 to .59; Baker et al., 2016). According to the CEBC (2021), the ARTIC’s rating of “A” establishes the instrument’s psychometrics (reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity). As noted by the CEBC, using a tool with strong psychometric properties ensures that evaluators are, in fact, measuring what they seek to measure. Scoring There were two main steps to scoring the ARTIC-45 (Baker et al., 2020). First, 25 items were reverse coded. Items for which N/A was selected on items 36 to 45 were then rescored as 73 missing data. Second, the average for each subscale was determined. For each of the seven subscales, scores ranged from 1 to 7. Subscales were calculated for a given participant as long as the majority of items within the subscale were completed (i.e., at least four of seven items for the five main subscales and at least three of five items for the two supplementary subscales). Data Collection Procedures Request for consent to use both the CRTSE and the ARTIC was sent to the copyright holders. Once the study was approved through the IRB at the University of Southern California, the researcher submitted a letter for recruitment to various social media educator organizations requesting that the online survey be sent to their members. Qualtrics was used for all data collection. The social media recruitment post included a survey link for participants to follow, including the informed consent letter. The informed consent notified participants of the purpose of the study, participation being voluntary, and the ability to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, as well as procedures for completing the study, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality, and rights as participants. Following consent, participants were able to access the survey. Given that current professional assignment at a Title I school in California was a requirement for involvement in this study, it was anticipated that the sample participants would be representative of California educators who work in a Title I school, which allowed the researcher to make generalizations about the sample participants to the target population of Title I educators in in the United States. Confidentiality Parameters The setting in which a participant could interact with the researcher was email, however, this was only if the participant had questions regarding the study (as alluded to in the “Letter of 74 Recruitment” and the “Consent Letter” for participation). Furthermore, if the participant chose to participate in the raffle, as an incentive, the researcher notified the “winning” participants through the email address provided through the raffle inquiry (Google Form). Participants’ answers on the survey were a one-way direction for the researcher to identify the study’s findings; however, no communication from the researcher to participants occurred through the survey platform. Information about participants was gained through their answers on the demographics portion of the survey, as well as their answers on the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments. Participants were able to email the researcher if they had questions. The researcher obtained participant email addresses through participant self-motivated inquiry and/or through their participation in the raffle. Potential privacy risks were minimal to none. Participants could choose not to answer any question or to end participation in the study without penalty. To participate in the raffle, participants had to provide their email address at the end of the survey, which was stored separately from their survey responses. Participants were notified at the email address that they provided if they were chosen as a raffle winner. The options for participants to disclose identity were minimal to zero. All survey responses were anonymous and were not linked to participants’ names, email addresses, or any other identifier. For the purposes of entering the raffle, the link provided at the end of the survey took respondents to a separate Google Form where they could enter their email address. The identifiers from the raffle questionnaire were not linked to survey responses. All information entered in the raffle questionnaire was deleted once the raffle was complete. All responses to the online survey were downloaded directly from Qualtrics by the researcher. Only the researcher 75 had access to the dataset. All participant data were stored on a password-protected computer. The results of this research study may be used for future research studies, made public, and quoted in professional journals and conferences. However, results from this study are reported only in an aggregated form, without potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individual participants. The steps taken to ensure access to the minimum amount of information necessary to complete this study included that all participants received the Recruitment Letter and the Consent Letter, which thoroughly outlined the purpose of the study and provided a description of the confidentiality parameters and the data collection process. All ethical considerations were followed. No information was obtained about participants other than the desired sampling information. Data Management Throughout data collection, the researcher maintained up-to-date cybersecurity practices by following safe computing practices, staying current by reading technological articles, installing anti-virus software and firewall protection, and enabling automatic updates for Windows. The following six steps were followed for classifying the research data: (a) ensured data privacy (only the researcher had access to the data); (b) collecting only specific data, which included standard demographic and professional background data and responses on the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments; (c) following all American Educational Research Association (AERA) ethical standards for educational researchers; (d) analyzing the potential impact and means of prevention of a data breach through BitLocker encryption; (e) ensuring that all cybersecurity practices were followed; and (f) preventing data loss by ensuring redundant backup storage through Microsoft 365 Onedrive. 76 Regarding system authentication and security, the researcher ensured that access to all confidential and sensitive data was managed appropriately by using strong passwords, restricting user permissions to the files, and locking the workstation when the researcher was away. BitLocker data encryption was used to protect confidential and sensitive research data (Microsoft 365, n.d.). BitLocker encrypts the entire computer drive and creates a layer of security to prevent access to encrypted data. The BitLocker encryption stayed with the data as it traveled through networks, web servers, application servers, and database servers. Since BitLocker encrypts the entire computer operating system, confidential and sensitive email communications were protected. If a potential security risk had been detected, BitLocker would have locked the operating system. The Qualtrics platform complies with applicable data privacy laws, including SOC2 Type 2 Certification (Qualtrics, 2020). This type of certification is the widely recognized standard for a comprehensive security program. Once data collection was complete, participant scores were uploaded to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software for statistical analysis (International Business Machines, n.d.). SPSS was stored on the researcher's hard drive. All data was kept on a password-protected computer to which only the researcher had access. Once the study was complete, all data were deleted from the computer. Dissemination of Findings The dissemination of findings was guided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) 5-Key Elements of a Dissemination Plan (AHRQ, n.d.). Prior to engaging in this plan, stakeholder analysis was completed, using current empirical research studies as described in Chapters 1 and 2. Stakeholders who may be invested in this study’s findings include 77 K–12 education leaders, classroom teachers, school counselors, school board members, higher education leaders, and education researchers. The dissemination plan is described below. The purpose of disseminating research findings is to inform stakeholders and raise awareness about the importance of the need to develop educators’ culturally responsive self- efficacy and ways in which such practices may predict attitudes related to TIP. The audience is K–12 education leaders, classroom teachers, school counselors, school board members, and education researchers. Dissemination of findings will be in a message format that will be correct and realistic, as well as clear and easy to understand by the target audience. The results of this study are reported in Chapter 4. This dissertation will be uploaded and published on ProQuest for university students and other practitioner scholars to access (ProQuest is also accessible through a search on Google Scholar). The researcher may present findings at professional conferences and websites affiliated with professional conferences may publish findings to promote the conference. Findings will initially be published on ProQuest as early as June 2022. However, dissemination to professional conference affiliates will vary due to professional conference timelines. Data Analysis The collected data were exported from the Qualtrics platform to SPSS software for analysis. This study used descriptive statistics to analyze the demographic data and inferential statistics to address the four research questions and corresponding hypotheses. Descriptive Analysis The demographic survey was used to explore differences between participant variables such as age, years worked in education, current position at a Title I school, possible racial/ethnic 78 differences in responses, and whether prior trauma-informed training or previous education in CRP connected to variations in participants’ responses on the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize data based on the properties of each demographic data point. The type of descriptive statistics that were used were measures of frequency and measures of central tendency. Measures of frequency were used to show how often a response was given. Measures of central tendency were used to locate the distribution of responses by various data points (mean, median, mode), which helped to identify the average and the most indicated response. Inferential Analysis The researcher analyzed each of the hypotheses using inferential analysis as measured by regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). This type of analysis allowed the researcher to identify the strength of the predictor variables and to pinpoint differences among variables. Table 5 reports the inferential analysis for each of the four research questions and related hypotheses, with identification of both the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV). Inferential Reliability This study used internal consistency to ensure inferential reliability. Internal consistency ensures how regularly the research method is measuring the variables of the research questions. To measure these variables, the researcher used data-gathering instruments that have been demonstrated to be reliable (see Instrumentation section). The same results were consistently achieved by using the same methods under the same circumstances. The researcher did not make any adjustments to the wording of the instrument items or adjustments to the chronological 79 Table 5 Inferential Analysis of Research Questions Research Questions (RQ) Instrument Analysis RQ 1. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 1. Self-efficacy beliefs in CRP will predict educators’ attitudes related to TIP. IV. CRTSE score DV. ARTIC 7 subscale scores Linear Regression RQ 2. Does the number of training events attended in CRP predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 2.1. The number of training events in CRP will predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. IV. Demographic survey: Number of CRP trainings attended DV. CRTSE score Linear Regression H 𝑎 2.2. The number of training events in CRP will predict attitudes related to TIP. IV. Demographic survey: Number of CRP trainings attended DV. ARTIC 7 subscale scores Linear Regression RQ 3. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 3.1. There is a difference in educators’ self- efficacy beliefs in CRP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. IV. Demographic survey: Schoolwide support for CRP IV. Demographic survey: Schoolwide implementation for CRP DV. CRTSE score ANOVA H 𝑎 3.2. There is a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. IV. Demographic survey: Schoolwide support for CRP IV. Demographic survey: Schoolwide implementation for CRP DV. ARTIC 7 subscale scores MANOVA 80 Table 5 (Continued) Research Questions (RQ) Instrument Analysis RQ 4. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience in a Title I school, job position, and primary or secondary grade level among educators who work in a Title I school? H 𝑎 4.1. There will be a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Demographic survey: IV. Race/Ethnicity IV. Gender IV. Years of Title I experience IV. Job position IV. Grade level DV. CRTSE score ANOVA H 𝑎 4.2. There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Demographic survey: IV. Race/Ethnicity IV. Gender IV. Years of Title I experience IV. Job position IV. Grade level DV. ARTIC 7 subscale scores MANOVA Note. CRP = culturally responsive pedagogy, TIP = trauma-informed practices, CRTSE = Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale, ARTIC = Attitudes Related to Trauma- Informed Care, ANOVA = analysis of variance, MANOVA = multiple analysis of variance. order in which the survey items were numbered. All protocols for data collection and analysis for both the CRTSE and ARTIC were followed as recommended by the copyright holders. It is important to note that the researcher was unable to control for environment variables because participants completed the online survey in various environments. This posed a threat to reliability due to the inconsistent environments among participants. Moreover, participants entered this research study with many different backgrounds, education, and training regarding CRP and TIP. This posed a risk to reliability because some participants may not have understood the concepts described in the survey items. 81 Inferential Validity To ensure inferential validity, the researcher used data-gathering instruments that have been demonstrated to be valid (see Instrumentation section). Content validity was assessed to determine the extent to which the CRTSE and ARTIC instruments covered all aspects of the research question variables. To ensure that inferential validity was upheld, the researcher did not make any adjustments to the wording of the instrument items nor adjustments to the chronological order in which the survey items were numbered. All protocols for data collection and analysis for both the CRTSE and ARTIC were followed as recommended by the copyright holders. Chapter Summary This chapter described the research design that was used to explore the relationships between educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP. Information in this chapter included a description of participants and social media groups that were targeted for recruitment. Recruitment methods were described, as well as documents presented to participants. Reliability, validity, and scoring instructions for each instrument were reported. Procedural methods were discussed, outlining each step of the research study process. 82 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS This chapter presents a review of the data that were gathered to explore the relationships between culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP among California educators in K–12 Title I schools. Included in this chapter are the preliminary analyses, analyses of the research questions, and results of post hoc analyses. Prior to analysis, the data were cleaned, coded, and examined to ensure accuracy and completeness. Mean substitution was used to replace missing data on scored items on both the CRTSE and the ARTIC scales. Mean substitution was used only for cases with one missing response. Cases with two or more missing responses were excluded from the analyses. For data analyses, the seven ARTIC subscale scores were the main dependent variables in all four research questions, along with the CRTSE strength index representing the dependent variable in three of four research questions. The main independent variables were the number of professional training events in CRP attended, and the degree of schoolwide support and implementation for CRP, as well as race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, and educators’ current job position. However, it is important to note that, for Research Question 1, the CRTSE strength index was analyzed as the independent variable. The SPSS software program was used for all data analyses. Descriptive Analysis In this study, 532 educators volunteered to participate. Of the 532 survey response sets, 124 could not be included in the analysis due to incomplete responses (n = 38), late responses (n = 35), or responses that contradicted participants’ professional assignment and credentials (n = 26) as set by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2017, 2020). Also, 25 response sets were omitted after running a straight-line analysis of variance for both the CRTSE 83 (n = 12) and ARTIC (n = 13). Therefore, 408 survey response sets were included in the final data analyses. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 60 years (M = 30-45, SD = 1.07). Female participants comprised 63.2% (n = 258) of the sample; male participants comprised 35.3% (n = 144). Six participants identified as transmale (0.7%), transfemale (0.5%), or nonbinary (0.2%). In terms of race/ethnicity, 251 participants were White (61.5%) and 149 (38.5%) were educators of color, with 65 (15.9%) identifying as African American/Black and 33 (8.1%) identifying as Hispanic/Latinx. Eight participants marked other as their racial identity. A majority of the participants (n = 296, 72.5%) were K–12 classroom teachers and 81 (19.9%) were school counselors. However, it is important to note that 31 (7.6%) marked both teacher and school counselor as their current position; it is not uncommon to carry a combined teaching and school counseling assignment. The number of years worked in K–12 education ranged from 1 to more than 15 (M = 5-11, SD = 1.287). Title I school experience ranged from 1 year to more than 15 years (M = 3-8, SD = 1.340). Most of the participants were teachers or school counselors from secondary grade levels (n = 277, 67.9%), whereas 114 (27.9%) worked at the primary grade level. A total of 17 (4.2%) participants marked their job assignment at both the primary and secondary grade levels. Table 6 shows the demographic distribution of the study participants. Preliminary Analyses Pearson product and Spearman correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among variables. Pearson correlation was used to analyze continuous variables and Spearman correlation was used to analyze ordinal variables. Table 7 presents the Pearson correlations and means and standard deviations for each variable. Table 8 presents Spearman 84 Table 6 Frequency Distribution of Demographics of Educator Participants (N = 408) Characteristic and category n % Age (years) 20–29 67 16.4 30–39 163 40.0 40–49 101 24.8 50–59 58 14.2 60 or older 19 4.7 Race/ethnicity African American/Black American 65 15.9 American Indian/Alaskan Native 19 4.7 Asian/Asian American 19 4.7 Hispanic/Latinx 33 8.1 Middle Eastern/North African/Arab/Arab American 11 2.7 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 0.5 White/European American 251 61.5 Other 8 2.0 Gender identity Male 144 35.3 Female 258 63.2 Transmale/transman 3 0.7 Transfemale/transwoman 2 0.5 Nonbinary or gender queer 1 0.2 Years worked in K–12 education 1–2 29 7.1 3–4 111 27.2 5–9 104 25.5 10–15 62 15.2 > 15 102 25.0 Years worked at a Title I school 1–2 71 17.4 3–4 127 31.1 5–9 101 24.8 10–15 33 8.1 > 15 76 18.6 85 Table 6 (continued) Characteristic and category n % Current position at a Title I school a Elementary Teacher 90 22.1 Middle/Intermediate/Junior High Teacher 88 21.6 High School Teacher 105 25.7 Elementary School Counselor 21 5.1 Middle/Intermediate/Junior High School Counselor 16 3.9 High School Counselor 36 8.8 Split school teaching position a 8 2.0 Split teaching and school counseling position 31 7.6 Primary or secondary grade level Primary (K–6) 114 27.9 Secondary (7–12) 277 67.9 Both primary and secondary 17 4.2 a Educators with split positions have multiple teaching and/or school counseling assignments, with duties ranging between grade levels and/or at one or more school sites. 86 Table 7 Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Continuous Variables Variable n M SD 1 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g 1. CRTSE Strength 408 2953.39 579.21 - .226** .267** .213** .428** .277** .327** .256** Index 2. ARTIC Underlying 395 467.58 88.00 - .522** .580** .406** .497** .342** .091 Causes 2b. ARTIC Responses 395 463.18 108.16 - .719** .630** .672** .592** .307** 2c. ARTIC On-the-Job 395 467.84 99.6 - .525** .689** .500** .207** Behavior 2d. ARTIC Self-Efficacy 395 485.62 114.17 - .643** .670** .534** 2e. ARTIC Reactions 395 468.47 96.48 - .598** .354** 2f. ARTIC Personal 357 462.92 114.04 - .671** Support 2g. ARTIC System 368 434.61 122.13 - Support Note. CRTSE = Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale. ARTIC = Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care. 87 Table 8 Sample Sizes, Means, Standard Deviations, and Spearman Correlations for Ordinal Variables Variables n M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Title I School Experience 408 2.79 1.340 -- .048 -.050 -.001 2. Number of CRP Professional Training Events Attended 408 2.09 1.510 -- .226** .267** 3. Degree of CRP Schoolwide Implementation 408 1.59 .493 -- .522** 4. Degree of CRP Schoolwide Support 408 1.67 .472 -- Note. CRP = Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. **p < .01 level (2-tailed). variable correlations, as well as the sample sizes, means, and standard deviations for each ordinal variable. The two main dependent variables in this study, CRTSE strength index and ARTIC subscale scores, showed significant Pearson’s correlations across all continuous variables. The CRTSE strength index scores had a significant correlation (p < .01) with all seven ARTIC subscale scores: underlying causes, responses, on-the-job behavior, self-efficacy, reactions, personal support, and system support. ARTIC subscale scores yielded significant correlations (p < .01) between six of the seven subscale scores. However, the variable underlying causes of problem behaviors was not associated with systemwide support for TIP. The number of CRP professional training events attended was significantly correlated with both the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation (p <.01) and the degree of schoolwide CRP support (p <.01). The degree of schoolwide CRP implementation was significantly 88 correlated with the degree of schoolwide CRP support (p <.01). However, Title I school experience was not associated with the number of CRP training events attended nor the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and the degree of schoolwide CRP support. As recommended by Siwatu (2007), descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the item-specific mean CRTSE strength index scores. The item-specific mean CRTSE scores, standard deviations, and the minimum and maximum result for all 40 items are presented in Appendix K. Of the four competency areas outlined by Siwatu (2007) and presented in Chapter 2, strength indices were the highest on items related to classroom management and curriculum and instruction. Higher means in this domain included items such as “I can develop a personal relationship with my students” (M = 79.68, SD = 18.36), and “I can implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups during a classroom lesson or as part of a school counseling program” (M = 76.17, SD = 18.65). Means were the lowest in the domains of building cultural connections and cultural enrichment, as well as student assessment. These domains included items such as “I can identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards culturally diverse students” (M = 71.50, SD = 22.09), and “I can design a teaching/counseling lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics” (M = 65.14, SD = 24.77). Upper and lower quartile items are displayed in Table 9. Analysis of Research Question 1 Research Question 1 was, Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy beliefs in CRP will predict educators’ attitudes related to TIP. Seven separate simple linear regressions were conducted to examine the influence of the single 89 Table 9 Item-Specific Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Responses in the Upper and Lower Quartiles Upper Quartile (CRTSE items) (20) Develop a personal relationship with my students (9) Build a sense of trust in my students (32) Help students feel like important members of the classroom (or counseling sessions) (3) Determine whether my students like to work alone or in groups (21) Obtain information about my students’ academic weaknesses (11) Use a variety of teaching (or counseling) methods (24) Communicate with parents regarding their child’s educational progress (37) Obtain information regarding my students’ academic interests (26) Help students to develop positive relationships with their classmates (39) Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups during a classroom lesson or as part of a school counseling session Lower Quartile (CRTSE items) (33) Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards culturally diverse students (27) Revise instructional (or counseling) materials to include a better representation of cultural groups (28) Critically examine the curriculum (or counseling program) to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes (5) Identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, and practices) is different from my students’ home culture (23) Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards linguistically diverse students (6) Implement strategies to minimize the effects of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and school culture (18) Greet English Language Learners with a phrase in their native language (22) Phrase English Language Learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language (17) Teach students about their culture’s contributions to science (or counsel students about their cultures’ contributions to science) (29) Design a teaching/counseling lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics 90 predictor variable of the CRTSE strength index score on the outcome variables of educators’ attitudes related to TIP, as measured by the seven ARTIC subscales. Of the 408 participant response sets, 13 could not be included in the analysis for ARTIC Subscales 1 through 5 (n = 395) due to incomplete responses. For the same reason, 51 response sets were omitted for Subscale 6 (n = 357) and 40 response sets were omitted for Subscale 7 (n = 368). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Results were significant for the overall prediction model using the ARTIC subscale mean scores. Table 10 reports the results of regression analyses for each of the ARTIC subscale variables, along with the CRTSE regression coefficients and the standard errors for each analysis. Each of the ARTIC subscale regression analyses showed culturally responsive self- efficacy beliefs as a significant predictor of attitudes related to TIP among Title I educators. Although the correlation was significant, only 4.5% to 18.3% of the variability was accounted for, with the highest variability in self-efficacy at work (18.3%) and personal support (10.7%). Appendix L shows a scatterplot for each of the seven ARTIC subscales. Analysis of Research Question 2 Research Question 2 was, Does the number of trainings received in CRP predict self- efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 2.1: The number of training events in CRP attended will predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Hypothesis 2.2: The number of training events in CRP attended will predict attitudes related to TIP. 91 Table 10 Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index as a Predictor of Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Among Title I Educators ARTIC subscale n R 2 df F B SE ß p Subscale 1: Underlying Causes 395 .051 1, 393 21.073 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .034 .007 .226 <.001 Subscale 2: Responses 395 .071 1, 393 30.145 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .050 .009 .267 <.001 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior 395 .045 1, 393 18.633 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .037 .009 .213 <.001 Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy 395 .183 1, 393 88.091 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .084 .009 .428 <.001 Subscale 5: Reactions 395 .077 1, 393 32.645 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index 0.46 .008 .277 <.001 Subscale 6: Personal Support 357 .107 1, 355 42.508 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .064 .010 .327 <.001 Subscale 7: System Support 368 .066 1, 366 25.669 <.001 CRTSE Strength Index .054 .011 .256 <.001 Hypothesis 2.1 was tested using simple linear regression to examine the influence of the predictor variable, the number of CRP training events attended, on the outcome variable, CRTSE strength index score. The survey item for the number of CRP training events attended was on a 5-point scale (0 = No Trainings to 4 = 4+ Trainings). The mean number of training events attended was 2 (SD = 1.36). Participants who had attended no training events accounted for 17.4%, and participants with four plus training events attended also accounted for 17.4% of the data examined. Most participants (46%) had attended one training event (23%) or three training 92 events (23%). Table 11 reports the frequency distribution of each type of CRP training that participants had received. Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Training and Type of Training (N = 408) CRP Training f % Answered Yes to “Have you been trained in CRP?” 337 82.6 College Degree (Bachelors or Masters) Program 133 32.6 Credential Program 136 33.3 Trained at Work 191 46.8 Webinar (1-2 days) 97 23.8 Professional Conference 80 19.6 ASCA CRP Training 53 13.0 Book Study 50 12.3 Other (Participants’ Description) 8 2.0 Courageous Conversations about Race. Training by PEG 1 0.2 Doctoral Coursework 2 0.4 Micro-credential Course 1 0.2 National Education Association Modules 1 0.2 TEAMS (Teachers for the Educational Advancement Multicultural Society); T4SJ (Teachers for Social Justice) 1 0.2 We have staff meetings about this but it’s frustratingly not good! 1 0.2 PLC groups at school; although, it needs a TON of work. 1 0.2 Hypothesis 2.1 was accepted. The number of CRP training events attended predicted educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP as measured by the CRTSE strength index (F [1, 406] = 5.832, p = .016, R 2 = .014), with 1.4% of the CRTSE index variability accounted for. Unstandardized coefficients for the number of CRP training events attended were B = 50.574, 93 SE = 20.942, with a beta standardized coefficient of ß = .119 and a significance level of p = .016). Hypothesis 2.2 was also analyzed using simple linear regression. This type of regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of the predictor variable, the number of CRP training events attended, to that of the outcome variable, attitudes related to TIP, as measured by the seven ARTIC subscale scores. With seven subscales, seven separate linear regressions were investigated. Hypothesis 2.2 was supported in four of the seven ARTIC subscales. Responses to problem behaviors, on-the-job behaviors, and reactions to the work were not supported as significant outcome variables as predicted by the number of CRP training events attended. Table 12 shows the regression analyses for each of the significant outcome variables as predicted by the number of CRP training events attended. Table 12 Summary of Simple Linear Regression Statistics for the Number of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Training Events Attended as a Predictor of Attitudes Related to Trauma- Informed Practices Among Title I Educators Attitudes Related to Trauma- Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale n R 2 df F B SE ß p Subscale 1: Underlying Causes 395 .009 1, 393 3.623 .05 Number of CRP Training Events 6.176 3.244 .096 .05 Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy 395 .020 1, 393 8.132 .005 Number of CRP Training Events 11.935 4.185 .142 .005 Subscale 6: Personal Support 357 .014 1, 355 4.975 .026 Number of CRP Training Events 9.898 4.438 .118 .026 Subscale 7: System Support 368 .020 1, 366 7.565 .006 Number of CRP Training Events 12.770 4.643 .142 .006 94 Analysis of Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was, Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 3.1: There will be a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. Hypothesis 3.2 There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. To determine whether there were differences in the two independent variables, one between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to measure the dependent variable self-efficacy beliefs in CRP, and a single between-subject multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was conducted to measure the dependent variable with the subscale attitudes related to TIP. Initial survey items for the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and the degree of schoolwide CRP support included two items that were each on a 4-point Likert-type response scale of 1 = Not at all, 2 = Small (one or a few staff members support CRP or are trying to implement CRP); 3 = Somewhat (most staff support CRP or are trying to implement CRP); and 4 = Large (there is large schoolwide support for CRP or schoolwide implementation for CRP). For measurement purposes, participants who answered with 1 or 2 were considered in the low implementation or low support group and those who answered with 3 or 4 were placed in the high implementation or high support group. Therefore, each independent variable consisted of two groups (low and high). Hypothesis 3.1 was supported. The between-subjects ANOVA for self-efficacy beliefs in CRP revealed a significant main effect for schoolwide CRP support, F(1, 407) = 19.647, p = < 95 .001. Participants with a high degree of CRP support (n = 272, 66.7%) had higher scores on the CRTSE than those in the low support group. Table 13 shows the means for CRTSE strength index scores by low and high groups regarding schoolwide CRP support. Table 13 Means for the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSE) Strength Index by Degree of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Support (N = 408) Degree of Schoolwide CRP Support M SD n Low 2785.58 576.77 136 High 3037.29 562.96 272 Schoolwide CRP implementation showed no main effect on CRTSE scores; however, there was a significant interaction between CRP implementation and CRP support on CRTSE scores, F(1, 407) = 11.904, p = < .001. Participants with a high degree of CRP implementation and a low degree of CRP support (n = 38, 9.3%) had the lowest CRTSE scores on group interactions. Those with high CRP implementation and high CRP support (n = 201, 49.2%) had the highest scores on group interactions. Table 14 shows the means for CRTSE strength index scores by low and high groups regarding schoolwide CRP support and schoolwide CRP implementation. Hypothesis 3.2 was supported. A single between-subjects MANOVA for the dependent variable of attitudes related to TIP revealed significant differences in the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and the degree of schoolwide CRP support. 96 Table 14 Means for Group Interactions Between the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index and the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation and Support (N = 408) Degree of schoolwide CRP implementation Degree of schoolwide CRP support M SD n Low Low 2876.90 554.53 98 High High Low 2941.83 2550.05 535.59 573.21 71 38 High 3071.01 569.78 201 For schoolwide CRP implementation, there was a significant main effect for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(1, 356) = 12.061, p = < .001; responses to problem behavior and symptoms, F(1, 356) = 7.772, p = .006; on-the-job behavior, F(1, 356) = 18.348, p = < .001; self-efficacy at work, F(1, 356) = 3.589, p = .05; and reactions to the work, F(1, 356) = 7.083, p = .008. Table 15 shows the mean scores for ARTIC Subscales 1 through 5. For schoolwide CRP support, there was a significant main effect for responses to problem behavior and symptoms, F(1, 356) = 14.668, p = < .001; on-the-job behavior, F(1, 356] = 14.182, p = < .001; self-efficacy at work, F(1, 356) = 24.535, p = < .001; reactions to the work, F(1, 356) = 23.509, p = < .001; personal support of TIP, F(1, 356) = 13.938, p = < .001; and systemwide support of TIP, F(1, 356) = 13.231, p = < .001. Table 16 shows the mean scores for ARTIC Subscales 2 through 7. There was a significant difference for schoolwide CRP implementation and schoolwide CRP support with responses to problem behavior and symptoms, F(1, 356) = 8.999, p = .003; on- 97 Table 15 Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Degree of schoolwide CRP implementation M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Low 481.46 83.641 141 High 454.14 89.197 216 Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Low 465.35 116.835 141 High 459.66 105.276 216 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Low 483.24 103.428 141 High 456.89 95.556 216 Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work Low 470.61 105.912 141 High 490.42 120.165 216 Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work Low 466.34 99.244 141 High 466.00 92.218 216 98 Table 16 Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Support (N = 357) ARTIC Subscale Degree of schoolwide CRP support M SD n Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Low 436.87 109.064 115 High 473.80 108.447 242 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Low 451.03 100.616 115 High 475.03 98.137 242 Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work Low 442.30 98.937 115 High 501.74 117.320 242 Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work Low 436.50 92.380 115 High 480.22 93.021 242 Subscale 6: Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Low 426.74 92.877 115 High 480.11 119.202 242 Subscale 7: Systemwide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Low 392.81 105.904 115 High 457.01 119.762 242 the-job behavior, F(1, 356) = 4.662, p = .032; self-efficacy at work, F(1, 356) = 24.666, p = < .001; reactions to the work, F(1, 356) = 6.074, p = .014; and personal support of TIP, F(1, 356) = 6.450, p = .012. Table 17 shows the mean scores for ARTIC Subscales 2 through 6. Analysis of Research Question 4 Hypothesis 4.1: There will be a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Hypothesis 4.2: There will be a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. To determine whether there were differences in the five independent variables, one between- 99 Table 17 Means for Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by the Interaction Between the Degree of Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Implementation and Schoolwide CRP Support (N = 357) ARTIC Scale Degree of schoolwide CRP implementation Degree of schoolwide CRP support M SD n Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Low Low High 460.53 471.67 116.604 117.802 80 61 High Low 382.80 62.968 35 High 474.52 105.444 181 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Low Low High 474.81 494.30 105.802 100.013 80 61 High Low 396.69 59.695 35 High 468.54 96.913 181 Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work Low Low High 470.69 470.51 102.773 110.756 80 61 High Low 377.43 45.279 35 High 512.27 117.888 181 Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work Low Low High 454.46 481.92 97.315 100.388 80 61 High Low 395.43 64.143 35 High 479.65 90.690 181 Subscale 6: Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Low Low High 437.69 454.26 100.185 108.692 80 61 High Low 401.71 68.373 35 High 488.82 121.589 181 subjects ANOVA was conducted to measure the dependent variable self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and one between-subjects MANOVA was conducted to measure the dependent variable with subscales on attitudes related to TIP. 100 Hypothesis 4.1 was supported. A single between-subjects ANOVA for the dependent variable self-efficacy beliefs in CRP showed no main effects. However, post hoc analysis showed significant differences among race/ethnicity, job position, and Title I experience. Post hoc tests were not performed for gender because at least one group had fewer than two cases. Grade level had fewer than three groups and therefore was also excluded from post hoc analysis. Post hoc analysis showed significant interactions for race/ethnicity between Latinx and White participants (p = .018), Latinx and Middle Eastern/Arab American (ME/AA) participants (p = .030), ME/AA and participants who marked other for race/ethnicity (p = .024), and between White participants and participants who marked other for race/ethnicity (p = .043), with Latinx participants showing higher scores on the CRTSE than White or ME/AA participants. However, participants who identified as other had higher scores on the CRTSE than either White or ME/AA participants. Table 18 shows the results of post hoc analysis of mean CRTSE strength index scores by race/ethnicity. Post hoc testing for Hypothesis 4.1 revealed a significant interaction between school counselors and educators who had a split position as classroom teacher and school counselor (p = .044), with school counselors showing higher CRTSE scores than participants with split positions. Table 19 shows the mean CRTSE strength index scores for school counselors and educators with a split position. Years of experience working in a Title I school showed a significant difference in post hoc analysis between participants with 1 to 2 years’ experience and those with more than 15 years’ experience (p = .039), participants with 3 to 4 years’ experience and those with 10-15 years’ experience (p = < .001) and participants with more than 15 years’ experience (p = < .001); participants with 5 to 9 years’ experience and those with 10 to 15 years’ experience (p = .012) 101 Table 18 Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE)Scale Strength Index Scores by Race/Ethnicity (N = 303) Race/ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Hispanic/Latinx 3165.00 526.30 33 ME/AA<HL WH< HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 2735.54 362.30 11 Other Race/Ethnicity 3329.37 366.25 8 HL < OR ME/AA < OR WH < OR White/European American 2916.71 619.58 251 ME/AA < WH Note. ME/AA = Middle Eastern/Arab American, WH = White, HL = Hispanic/Latinx, OR = other race/ethnicity. Table 19 Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index Scores by Job Position (N = 112) Job position M SD n School Counselor 3037.88 570.05 81 Split position (teacher and school counselor) 2796.38 605.28 31 102 and participants with more than 15 years’ experience (p = .002). Table 20 shows the mean CRTSE strength index score by years of experience working in a Title I school. Figure 2 illustrates the means for CRTSE scores by race/ethnicity, job position, and Title I experience. Table 20 Mean Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Strength Index Scores by Years of Experience Working in a Title I School (N = 408) Title I experience M SD n 1–2 years 2966.80 456.86 71 3–4 years 2811.44 578.23 127 5–9 years 2892.58 675.23 101 10–15 years 3180.21 526.49 33 > 15 years 3160.39 482.20 76 Hypothesis 4.2 was supported. A single between-subjects MANOVA for the dependent variable of attitudes related to TIP revealed significant main effect for race/ethnicity and job position, as well as significant interactions among all five independent variables. For race/ethnicity, there was a significant main effect for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(7, 356) = 2.114, p = .043; responses to problem behavior and symptoms, F(7, 356) = 2.732, p = .010; and on-the-job behavior, F(7, 356) = 2.161, p = .038, with participants who marked other for race/ethnicity (n = 8, 1.9%) and Latinx participants (n = 29, 8.1%) reporting more favorable attitudes on ARTIC Subscales 1 through 3 than other race/ethnicities. Table 21 shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by race/ethnicity. 103 Figure 2 Estimated Marginal Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) Scale Means by Job Position, Race/Ethnicity, and Title I Experience 104 Table 21 Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Race/Ethnicity (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American American Indian/Alaskan Native 437.07 426.22 59.911 60.512 61 18 Asian/Asian American 436.50 82.322 18 Hispanic/Latinx 485.69 118.373 29 Middle Eastern/Arab American 446.11 81.990 9 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 421.50 50.205 2 White/European American 473.93 89.252 213 Other Race/Ethnicity 557.14 79.915 7 Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American American Indian/Alaskan Native 413.59 387.28 78.362 79.772 61 18 Asian/Asian American 411.17 87.161 18 Hispanic/Latinx 513.28 104.615 29 Middle Eastern/Arab American 406.56 89.863 9 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 393.00 131.522 2 White/European American 478.46 112.570 213 Other Race/Ethnicity 579.43 98.669 7 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Black/African American American Indian/Alaskan Native 421.52 411.94 56.442 90.142 61 18 Asian/Asian American 468.94 112.642 18 Hispanic/Latinx 513.79 115.155 29 Middle Eastern/Arab American 417.33 82.576 9 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 500.00 41.012 2 White/European American 476.67 100.802 213 Other Race/Ethnicity 581.57 46.450 7 Gender alone did not have a significant main effect on any of the ARTIC subscales; however, when combined with race/ethnicity and Title I experience, there was a significant difference for on-the-job behavior, F(5, 356) = 3.228, p = .008, with female participants with 15 or more years’ experience working in a Title I school and participants who marked other for race/ethnicity and Latinx participants showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than those of a different race/ethnicity or gender or educators with fewer than 15 years Title I school experience. 105 Appendix M shows the mean ARTIC subscale score by race/ethnicity, gender, and Title I experience. Gender showed significant differences with Title I experience and job position for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(3, 356) = 3.662, p = .013, and on-the- job behavior, F(3, 356) = 3.999, p = .008, with female participants, school counselors (n = 69, 19.3%) and those with 10 or more years of Title I school experience (n =88, 24.6%) showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than participants of a different gender, job position, or those with fewer than 10 years of Title I school experience. The mean scores for both ARTIC subscales by gender, Title I experience, and job position are presented in Appendix N. Title I experience by itself did not have a significant main effect on any of the ARTIC subscales but, when combined with race/ethnicity and grade level, there was a significant interaction for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(1, 356) = 8.487, p = .004, with participants who marked other or Latinx for race/ethnicity, primary grade level educators (n = 98, 27.4%), and those with 10 or more years’ experience working in a Title I school reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than participants of a different race/ethnicity, educators who worked at the secondary grade level (Grades 7 to 12; n = 259, 72.5%), and those with fewer than 10 years Title I school experience (n = 269, 73.3%). Appendix O reports the ARTIC mean scores by race/ethnicity, Title I experience, and grade level. Title I school experience with job position showed a significant interaction with underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(7, 356) = 2.271, p = .030, with school counselors with 10 or more years’ experience showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than teachers (n = 257, 71.9%), dual position educators (n = 31, 8.6%), or participants with fewer than 106 10 years Title I school experience. Table 22 shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by Title I school experience and job position. Table 22 Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Score by Title I Experience and Job Position (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Title I experience Job position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms 1–2 years Teacher School Counselor Split position 441.10 514.43 395.33 71.738 99.976 8.083 49 7 3 3–4 years Teacher 449.54 77.028 84 School Counselor 455.07 112.492 14 Split Position 443.65 53.451 20 5–9 years Teacher 465.53 90.946 68 School Counselor 470.61 111.334 18 Split Position 426.17 59.855 6 10–15 years Teacher 499.94 102.435 16 School Counselor 485.89 114.954 9 Split Position 386.00 -- 1 >15 years Teacher 526.10 78.553 40 School Counselor 464.05 88.013 21 Split Position 343.00 -- 1 Job position alone showed a significant main effect for on-the-job behavior, F(2, 356) = 3.229, p = .041, with school counselors showing more favorable attitudes of empathy versus control than teachers or educators with a split position. Table 23 shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by job position. Job position revealed significant differences with race/ethnicity for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(7, 356) = 2.090, p = .045, with school counselors who 107 Table 23 Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Job Position (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Job position M SD n Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Teacher School Counselor 463.53 499.33 97.249 106.611 257 69 Split Position 427.29 82.050 31 marked other or Latinx for race/ethnicity showing more positive attitudes to TIP than participants of a different race/ethnicity or job position. Appendix P shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by race/ethnicity and job position. Grade level alone did not have a significant main effect but, when joined with race/ethnicity, show a significant difference with on-the-job behavior, F(5, 356) = 2.124, p = .050, with primary grade-level educators who marked White for race/ethnicity showing higher favorable attitudes to TIP than other race/ethnicities. However, secondary grade-level educators who marked other for race/ethnicity showed the most favorable attitudes of any race/ethnicity or grade-level group. Table 24 shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by race/ethnicity and grade level. Grade level showed significant differences with Title I experience and job position for reactions to the work, F(4, 356) = 2.406, p = .050, with secondary teachers and school counselors showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than primary educators. However, as Title I years of experience increased to 10 years and beyond, both grade levels and job positions showed higher mean scores than both job positions and grade levels with fewer than 10 years Title I school experience. 108 Table 24 Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Race/Ethnicity and Grade Level (N = 357) ARTIC Subscale Race/ethnicity Grade level M SD n Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Black/African American Primary Secondary 423.00 421.13 78.760 49.822 13 48 American Indian/Alaskan Native Primary Secondary 404.67 430.53 36.226 64.338 3 15 Asian/Asian American Primary 381.00 50.024 6 Secondary 464.25 82.558 12 Hispanic/Latinx Primary 473.00 111.327 9 Secondary 491.40 123.776 20 Middle Eastern/Arab American Primary Secondary 474.40 410.75 99.756 40.705 5 4 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Primary Secondary 386.00 457.00 -- -- 1 1 White/European American Primary Secondary 511.14 459.68 77.358 89.615 59 154 Other Race/Ethnicity Primary 464.50 30.406 2 Secondary 594.20 57.799 5 There were significant interactions between grade level, Title I experience, and job position for systemwide support of TIP, F(4, 356) = 2.416, p = .049, with secondary grade-level teachers with 5 to 9 years of Title I experience showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than secondary school counselors or participants with the same or fewer than 5 to 9 years of Title I school experience. As years of Title I school experience increased to 10 years or more, both job positions, at both grade levels, showed more favorable attitudes to TIP than reported by participants with fewer than 10 years of Title I school experience. Appendix Q displays the mean ARTIC subscale scores by Title I experience, grade level, and job position. 109 Grade level combined with job position displayed a significant effect for underlying causes of problem behavior and symptoms, F(2, 356) = 3.322, p = .038 and on-the-job behavior, F(2, 356) = 3.825, p = .023, with primary grade teachers and school counselors showing more favorable attitudes to TIP than secondary grade-level educators. Table 25 shows the mean ARTIC subscale scores by grade level and job position. Table 25 Mean Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Grade Level and Job Position (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Grade level Job position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Primary Teacher School Counselor 498.97 482.85 80.256 93.012 68 20 Split Position 412.90 25.727 10 Secondary Teacher 455.79 85.757 189 School Counselor 467.43 106.830 49 Split Position 438.86 62.739 21 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Primary Teacher School Counselor Split Position 502.69 519.25 368.70 88.783 107.596 42.421 68 20 10 Secondary Teacher 449.43 96.511 189 School Counselor 491.20 106.238 49 Split Position 455.19 82.187 21 Post hoc analysis for Hypothesis 4.2 showed significant differences among race/ethnicity groups for all seven ARTIC subscales. The most notable difference was shown among Latinx and participants and those participants who marked other for race/ethnicity. Both race/ethnicities had higher mean subscale scores than all other subgroups; however, Subscale 7 revealed the opposite outcome. Asian participants had higher mean scores for attitude beliefs related to 110 systemwide support for TIP. Subscale 7 was the only subscale where participants who marked other for race/ethnicity displayed lower mean scores than most of the other subgroups. On the other hand, with Asian participants revealing the highest mean scores within Subscale 7, more exploration is needed to understand this unique finding. Refer to Appendix R for a complete outline of the ARTIC subscale variables by race/ethnicity and significant differences between each subgroup. Subscales 1 through 6 revealed significant differences between gender groups. Female participants had more favorable attitudes to TIP than did male participants (p = < .001) on Subscale 1. Subscale 2 responses showed a significant difference between male and female participants, with female educators reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than male educators (p = < .001). For Subscale 3, differences were seen between female and male, transmale, and transfemale participants, with female educators reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than male (p = < .001), transmale (p = .008), or transfemale (p = .004) educators. Subscale 4 responses revealed a significant difference between male and transmale participants, with male educators reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than transmale (p = .05) educators. Subscale 5 responses revealed significant differences among female, male, and transmale participants, with female educators reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than male (p = .002) or transmale (p = .033) educators. Subscale 6 responses showed that female participants reported more favorable attitudes to TIP than did transmale participants (p = < .001). Appendix S shows results of post hoc analysis for differences in ARTIC mean scores by gender group. 111 Title I school years of experience revealed significant differences among mean scores for Subscales 1-6. Overall, educators with greater than 10 years’ Title I experience showed higher favorable attitudes across all six subscales. The most notable difference was among educators with 5-9 years’ Title I school experience. This subgroup showed higher Subscale 7 scores than all other subgroups. Subscale 7 measures attitudes of systemwide support for TIP. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the distinctive finding among educators within this subgroup. Comprehensive results of the post hoc analysis for differences in ARTIC mean scores according to Title I years of experience groups are reported in Appendix T. Job position subgroups revealed significant differences for Subscales 1 through 3. Subscale 1 revealed significant differences between teachers and split-position participants, with teachers reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than those with split positions (p = .017). There were significant differences between school counselors and split-position participants, with school counselors reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than those with split positions (p = .018). Subscale 2 responses revealed significant differences among school counselors, teachers, and split-position participants, with school counselors reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than teachers (p = .028) or educators with a split position (p = .005). Subscale 3 responses revealed significant differences between teachers and split-position participants, with teachers reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than those with split positions (p = .025). There were significant among between school counselors, teachers, and split-position participants, with school counselors reporting more favorable attitudes to TIP than teachers (p = .002) or those with a split position (p = < .001). Table 26 reports results of post hoc analysis for differences in ARTIC mean scores according to job position groups. 112 Chapter Summary This chapter reported results of all data analyses that were used to address each of the four research questions. The predictor, main effect, and interaction variables, along with post hoc analyses, uncovered unique yet essential practices that, moving forward, cannot be neglected. The results described in this chapter reported significant outcomes that have considerable implications for U.S. Title I educators, as discussed in Chapter 5. Table 26 Post Hoc Analysis for Mean Differences in Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Subscale Scores by Job Position (N = 357) \ ARTIC subscale Job position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Teacher School Counselor 467.21 471.90 86.318 102.581 257 69 Split Position 430.48 54.542 31 Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Teacher School Counselor 458.75 488.83 112.068 107.746 257 69 Split Position 428.10 82.483 31 Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Teacher School Counselor 463.53 499.33 97.249 106.611 257 69 Split Position 427.29 82.050 31 113 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP among California educators in K–12 Title I schools. Specifically, this study was designed to empirically examine the influence of educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on their attitudes related to TIP. The results of this study suggest that the factors identified in this research are important variables in understanding the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among California educators in K–12 Title I schools. This chapter contains conclusions of the main findings, discussion and implications for practice, and suggestions for future research Summary of Findings Inferential analysis was led by four research questions. Findings revealed that Title I educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP was a significant predictor of their attitudes related to TIP. In addition, the number of professional training events for CRP attended was a significant predictor of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP, as well as attitudes related to TIP. Study findings also showed group differences among Title I educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and their attitudes related to TIP on their reported degree of schoolwide support and implementation for CRP. A high degree of schoolwide support for CRP was associated with higher self-efficacy beliefs in CRP than. A high degree of schoolwide implementation for CRP was associated with significant group differences in five of the seven measured attitudes related to TIP. Ideal attitudes related to TIP were associated with a high degree of CRP implementation. Significant subgroup differences were associated with educators’ race/ethnicity, Title I school experience, and job position on their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. Educators who 114 identified as Latinx reported higher self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP than did participants of other race/ethnicity categories. More experience in Title I schools was associated with higher self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and ideal attitudes related to TIP. School counselors reported higher self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and ideal attitudes related to TIP than did teachers and educators with a split position. The following section presents the conclusions drawn from each of the four research questions and corresponding hypotheses. Conclusions Research Question 1 Research Question 1. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP predict attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy beliefs in CRP will predict educators’ attitudes related to TIP. As predicted, educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP were strong predictors of attitudes related to TIP. Attitudes related to TIP include seven domains, as measured by the seven subscales of the ARTIC instrument. The following trauma-informed attitudes were shown to be significantly predicted by educators’ strength of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP: Subscale 1: Understanding of Students’ Underlying Causes of Challenging Behavior and Symptoms; (b) Subscale 2: Responses to Challenging Student Behavior; (c) Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (empathy versus control-like behaviors); (d) Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work (feelings of being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories); (e) Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work (the level of appreciation for secondary trauma and coping by seeking support versus ignoring or hiding the impact; (f) Subscale 6: Personal Support of TIP (feelings of internal support and confidence about implementing TIP versus having reservations); and (g) Subscale 7: 115 Systemwide Support for TIP (feelings of schoolwide support from colleagues and administrators for utilizing TIP versus feelings of not being supported). The findings regarding influence of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on educators’ attitudes align with results reported in previous studies (Blitz et al., 2020; Chu & Garcia, 2014; Cruz et al., 2020; Gherardi et al., 2020; Pajares, 1996; SiSwati, 2007) regarding the importance of educators’ self-efficacy and how self-efficacy is an adequate predictor of behaviors and attitudes. Although a significant predictor, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP accounted for only 4.5% to 18.3% of the variability, indicating that little of the variation in attitudes related to TIP can be explained by the variation in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. The largest variability (18.3%) was shown for trauma- informed attitudes in Subscale 4, regarding having the self-efficacy needed to meet the demands of students with trauma histories. Thus, 18% of the time, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP adequately predicted self-efficacy beliefs in TIP. As the first known study to explore self-efficacy beliefs in CRP among California teachers and school counselors in K–12 Title I schools, it is important to examine further self- efficacy beliefs in CRP as an important variable in attitudes related to TIP. As the review of literature pointed out, a trauma-informed school culture includes establishing a culturally relevant framework that includes both CRP and TIP (Quiros & Berger, 2015). The educators’ degree of confidence in CRP functions as a catalyst for ideal trauma-informed attitudes. Therefore, with TIP growing rapidly in California schools, this is an important finding for pre- educator programs and in-service professional development in TIP. Educators’ self-efficacy in CRP must be centered throughout trauma-informed curricula so that educators are reaching students in Title I schools with inclusive and equitable practices. 116 Research Question 2 Research Question 2. Does the number of trainings received in CRP predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 2.1. The number of trainings in CRP will predict self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Hypothesis 2.2. The number of trainings in CRP will predict attitudes related to TIP. The number of CRP training events attended was a strong predictor of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Findings for Hypothesis 2.1 corroborate with previous studies on the influence of the number of CRP training events attended and educators’ strength of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP (Chu & Garcia, 2014; Cruz et al., 2020). While the number of CRP training events attended was a significant predictor of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP, only 1.4% of the variability was accounted for, indicating that a small fraction of the variation in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP can be explained by the variation in the number of CRP training events completed. What is unknown is the type of CRP training and the duration of training as possible predictor variables. Therefore, due to the low variability, further observation of these findings is recommended. Additional findings for Hypothesis 2.2 revealed that the number training events in CRP attended was a significant predictor of attitudes related to TIP. Specifically, the following trauma-informed attitudes were shown to be significant outcomes, as predicted by the number of professional training events in CRP attended: (a) Subscale 1: Understanding of Students’ Underlying Causes of Challenging Behavior and Symptoms; (b) Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work (feelings of being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories); (c) Subscale 6: Personal Support of TIP (feelings of internal support and confidence about implementing TIP versus having reservations); and (d) Subscale 7: Systemwide Support for TIP 117 (feelings of schoolwide support from colleagues and administrators for utilizing TIP versus feelings of not being supported). Findings suggest that little of the variation in attitudes related to TIP could be explained by variation in the number of CRP training events attended, yet the number of CRP training events attended was a significant predictor of four types of attitudes related to TIP. The findings for Hypothesis 2.2 align with results of previous studies on the outcome of educators’ attitudes as predicted by the number of training events in CRP attended (Baweja et al., 2016; Metzler et al., 2017). It is important to mention that the trauma-informed attitudes regarding reactions to challenging student behaviors (Subscale 1), the level of educator empathy for students with trauma histories (Subscale 3), and the level of awareness of secondary trauma and coping by seeking support from others (Subscale 5) were not found to be significant outcomes as predicted by the number of training events in CRP attended. This finding may be explained by the cognitive learning objectives (as seen in Bloom’s taxonomy) of most professional development training programs, which are guided mainly by knowledge and comprehension objectives (Sassoon et al., 2022). These two objectives are the lowest levels of learning and are often referred to as the foundational goals of learning. The attitudes related to TIP that were unaffected by the number of training events in CRP attended reside in the objective domains of application, synthesis, and evaluation, which can be achieved only through repeated exposure, practice, and experience (Sassoon et al., 2022). Therefore, training in CRP should be followed by opportunities for exposure and practice to gain experience to develop favorable attitudes related to TIP. 118 Research Question 3 Research Question 3. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 3.1. There is a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. Hypothesis 3.2. There is a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by the degree of implementation and schoolwide support for CRP. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP Schoolwide CRP Support. Related to Hypothesis 3.1, there were significant group differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP for a high degree of schoolwide CRP support. Educators who reported a high degree of CRP support reported strong self-efficacy beliefs in CRP, indicating that the degree of schoolwide CRP support influenced educators’ degree of self- efficacy beliefs in CRP. On the other hand, there were no group differences based on the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation; however, an interaction between the two independent variables yielded significant group differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Schoolwide CRP Support x Schoolwide CRP Implementation. Interaction results showed that educators with a high degree of CRP implementation and a low degree of CRP support reported lower self-efficacy beliefs in CRP than did those with both a high degree of implementation and a high degree of support. The high implementation/high support group had stronger self-efficacy beliefs in CRP than did any other group. These findings suggest that the degree of schoolwide CRP support has a greater effect on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs than does the degree of CRP implementation. Therefore, even when the degree of CRP implementation was high, if the degree of support was low, educator self-efficacy was also low. 119 One plausible reason for this result may be based on an individual’s feelings of working in an environment with low support for CRP, regardless of the degree of CRP implementation. This suggests that the lack of a supportive environment outweighs the degree of schoolwide implementation in influencing educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Altogether, the findings support those from previous research studies on the importance of schoolwide CRP support on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP (Bui & Fagan, 2013; Chu & Garcia, 2014; Cressey, 2019; Cruz et al., 2020; Gay, 2002; T. O. Jackson, 2011; Siwatu et al., 2017; Wah & Nasri, 2019; Warren, 2017). These findings are important for educational leaders and pre-educator programs to consider when working to develop or sustain educators’ self- efficacy. Attitudes Related to TIP Schoolwide CRP Implementation. Related to Hypothesis 3.2, significant group differences were seen for the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation in five of the seven trauma-informed attitudes: attitudes regarding the understanding of students’ underlying causes of challenging behavior and symptoms (Subscale 1), attitudes in how educators respond to challenging student behaviors (Subscale 2), attitudes concerning the level of educator empathy versus control-like behaviors (Subscale 3), attitudes about feelings of self-efficacy in being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories (Subscale 4), and attitudes considering the level of appreciation for secondary trauma and coping by seeking support (Subscale 5). The degree of schoolwide CRP implementation did not show significant group differences in educators’ trauma-informed attitudes related to their feelings of personal support for TIP (Subscale 6) or their attitudes regarding systemwide support for TIP (Subscale 7), suggesting that the degree of TIP support in the environment is not determined by the degree of 120 CRP implementation. Therefore, when K–12 leaders implement programs schoolwide, the focus should be on continued support for educators, not just on the number of educators who are implementing such practices. High CRP Implementation. Mean subscale scores in the high implementation group were higher for attitudes related to feelings of self-efficacy in being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories (Subscale 4), suggesting that the degree of CRP implementation influences educators’ self-efficacy for TIP. This finding is particularly interesting because previous analyses have shown an absence of a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation, indicating that the degree of implementation may influence educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in TIP but not their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. One reason for this finding may be a limitation in how both instruments assessed educators’ self-efficacy (CRTSE, 40 items, and Subscale 4 of the ARTIC, 7 items). Nonetheless, these findings warrant further examination of the differences in the degree of CRP implementation on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in both CRP and TIP. Low CRP Implementation. Participants in the low implementation group had more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than did those in the high implementation group, indicating that another factor may be responsible for differences in attitudes between groups. However, mean subscale scores in the high implementation group were higher for attitudes related to feelings of self-efficacy in being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories (Subscale 4), suggesting that the degree of CRP implementation influences educators’ self- efficacy for TIP. This finding is particularly interesting because previous analyses have shown an absence of a difference for the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation on educators’ self- efficacy beliefs in CRP, showing that the degree of implementation influences educators’ self- 121 efficacy beliefs in TIP but not their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. One reason for this finding may be a limitation in how both instruments assessed educators’ self-efficacy (CRTSE, 40 items, and Subscale 4 of the ARTIC, 7 items). Nonetheless, these findings warrant further examination of the differences in the degree of CRP implementation on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and TIP. Over all, these findings align with results of previous research regarding the effect of schoolwide CRP implementation on outcomes related to social-emotional learning, such as TIP (Cressey, 2019). It is important to examine further the role of schoolwide CRP implementation as an important factor in the varying degrees of Title I educators’ self-efficacy toward working with students in a Title I school. Schoolwide CRP Support. The degree of schoolwide CRP support was associated with significant group differences for trauma-informed attitudes regarding how educators respond to challenging student behaviors (Subscale 2), the level of educator empathy versus control for students with trauma histories (Subscale 3), feelings of self-efficacy in being able to meet the demands of students with trauma backgrounds (Subscale 4), the level of appreciation for secondary trauma and coping by seeking support (Subscale 5), and attitudes about personal (Subscale 6) and systemwide (Subscale 7) support for TIP. The only ARTIC subscale that did not show group differences in CRP support was attitudes regarding educators’ understanding of students’ underlying causes of challenging behavior and symptoms (Subscale 1). One possible reason for this result may be that CRP support is not necessary for development of educators’ understanding of students’ behaviors and symptoms of trauma. As mentioned in findings for Hypothesis 2.2, the cognitive learning objectives of most professional development training programs are guided by the knowledge and 122 comprehension objectives (Sassoon et al., 2022). These two objectives are the foundational goals of learning that may be satisfied by information-only training. At this point in the learning process, schoolwide support may not be as fundamental as it is with the other trauma-informed attitudes. Educators with a high degree of support reported more favorable attitudes to TIP than did the low support group, suggesting that, when the school environment is supportive of CRP, educators will have favorable attitudes toward TIP. Ultimately, CRP allows educators to deliver TIP in a way that is effective for students, thus affecting educator attitudes. Over all, these results support previous findings on the importance of schoolwide CRP support for attitudes related to educator practices (Shavlik et al., 2019; Knight, 2019; Robinson et al., 2019). Schoolwide CRP Support x Schoolwide CRP Implementation. The degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and support indicated significant differences between trauma- informed attitudes about how educators respond to challenging student behaviors (Subscale 2), attitudes concerning the level of educator empathy versus control-like behaviors (Subscale 3), feelings of self-efficacy in being able to meet the demands of students with trauma histories (Subscale 4), the level of appreciation for secondary trauma and coping by seeking support (Subscale 5), and feelings of internal support and confidence about implementing TIP (Subscale 6). For all ARTIC subscales that showed a significant difference, the lowest ARTIC scores were found in interactions between a high degree of CRP implementation and a low degree of support, suggesting that the degree of schoolwide support outweighs the effect of the degree of implementation, as seen in previous results on self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. More notable is the difference in trauma-informed attitudes between low CRP implementation and low CRP support. 123 This group had more favorable attitudes to TIP than did the group with high implementation and low support, implying that the degree of schoolwide CRP implementation and CRP support may be aligned with school culture. This finding suggests that, if CRP implementation is high but CRP support is low, an educator may feel ostracized, which may affect their attitudes. Ultimately, where schoolwide CRP support was high, attitudes related to TIP were more favorable than where CRP support was low, regardless of the degree of schoolwide implementation. Research Question 4 Research Question 4. Do self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP differ by race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience in a Title I school, job position, and primary or secondary grade level among educators who work in a Title I school? Hypothesis 4.1. There is a difference in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Hypothesis 4.2. There is a difference in educators’ attitudes related to TIP by race/ethnicity, gender, years of Title I school experience, job position, and grade level. Initial analysis for Hypothesis 4.1 showed no group differences for self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Post hoc analyses showed significant differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP for race/ethnicity, Title I experience, and job position. The following sections report the findings for each of the three variables. Race/Ethnicity: CRTSE For race/ethnicity, there were significant differences in educators’ strength of self- efficacy beliefs in CRP between Latinx and White participants, between Latinx and ME/AA participants, between ME/AA participants and those who marked other for race/ethnicity, and 124 between White participants and those who marked other for race/ethnicity. The following illustrates the significant differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP among race/ethnicity groups: Latinx > White, Latinx > ME/AA, Other > ME/AA, and Other > White. Latinx participants had higher self-efficacy beliefs than did White or ME/AA participants. However, participants who identified as other had higher self-efficacy beliefs than both White and ME/AA participants. One reason for this finding may be that Latinx educators are able to relate to many of their students, since most students in California Title I schools are also Latinx. Together, these findings suggest that those in the Latinx culture may have a skillset for self-efficacy that needs further exploration. Findings here align with results of research by Cruz et al. (2020), where identifying as Latinx was shown to be positively related to educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Job Position: CRTSE Participants’ job position showed significant differences in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP between school counselors and educators with a split position, with school counselors showing higher self-efficacy beliefs (by more than 200 points on the CRTSE scale) than teachers or those with split positions. The following illustrates the differences in self- efficacy beliefs in CRP among the three types of job positions: School Counselor > Split Position, School Counselor > Teacher, and Teacher > Split Position. These findings may be due to pre-educator training for school counselors using the ASCA mindsets and behavior standards. All in all, school counselors are in a unique position to support students, not just academically but also social/emotionally, whereas teachers may feel less inclined to support students socially and/or emotionally due to subject matter standards and school accountability measures, such as standardized testing and language proficiency. On the 125 other hand, participants with a split position reported lower self-efficacy beliefs in CRP than did either teachers or school counselors. One reason for this result may be the difficulty that split- position educators experience in being both a teacher and a school counselor. The two roles may be conflicting and stressful for educators as they may be placed at multiple school sites, requiring them to travel between schools on either a daily or weekly basis, depending on how the assignment is divided. Title I School Experience: CRTSE Findings showed that, as years of Title I school experience increased, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP increased. The following illustrates the significant differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP among Title I school experience: 9 years or more > 8 years or less, and 1-2 years > 3-9 years. Educators with more than 9 years’ experience reported stronger self-efficacy beliefs in CRP than did educators with fewer than 9 years’ experience. Those with 3 to 9 years’ experience reported the lowest self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. New educator participants, with 1 to 2 years’ experience, had higher self-efficacy beliefs (by more than 100 points on the CRTSE scale) than those with 3 to 9 years’ experience. This finding may be due to new educators having less experience with state and federal school accountability mandates, suggesting that the stressors of their job have not set in yet because they are still in the learning phase. Also, in California, the first 2 years of teaching are probationary, and job stability is insecure. Once educators reach their third year, most are granted tenure. These findings are supported by results of research studies that have identified years of educator experience and self-efficacy beliefs in CRP (Chu & Garcia, 2014; Siwatu, 2007; Siwatu et al., 2017). Ultimately, it is important to examine further the reasons for lower self-efficacy in the 3- to 9-year range, as this is the range when most educators 126 who will eventually quit do so (within the first 5 years, according to the CDE). It is also important to explore the reasons for higher self-efficacy among educators with 10 or more years’ experience and to leverage their experience as practice for less-experienced educators. Trauma-Informed Attitudes: ARTIC Result related to Hypothesis 4.2 showed significant differences in attitudes related to TIP for race/ethnicity and job position. Significant differences also occurred between trauma- informed attitudes and race/ethnicity, gender, Title I school experience, job position and grade level of students. Significant differences for each of the five independent variables are discussed under the sections of trauma-informed attitudes for which significant results were found. Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Trauma-informed attitudes about the underlying causes of problem behaviors and symptoms showed a significant difference according to race/ethnicity. Of all racial and ethnic identities included in the study, participants who identified as Latinx and those who marked other for race/ethnicity had more favorable trauma-informed attitudes related to understanding problem behaviors and symptoms of students with trauma histories than did any other race/ethnicity group. Race and Ethnicity. White educators had the third most favorable attitudes in this subscale. The lowest attitudes were reported by those who identified as NH/PI or AI/AN. Subscale 1 items included statements such as “I believe that students’ learning and behavior problems are rooted in their behavioral or mental health conditions” and “I believe students’ learning and behavior problems are rooted in their history of difficult life events.” It is not yet understood why NH/PI and AI/AN participants had lower attitude scores than the other groups. One possible reason is the low subgroup size of NH/PI and AI/AN participants, or perhaps the 127 lack of cultural relevance for those groups in the study’s instruments to measure such attitudes. Nonetheless, this finding warrants further investigation. Significant differences were also seen among Latinx, Black, AI/AN, and Asian participants, with Latinx participants reporting more favorable attitudes than Black, AI/AN, or Asian participants. Differences were seen among White, Black, AI/AN, and Asian participants, with White educators reporting more favorable attitudes in this subscale than Black, AI/AN, or Asian participants. These findings are perplexing because unfavorable attitudes in Subscale 1 agree with statements such as “Many students don’t want to change or learn” or “The students were raised this way, so there’s not much I can do about it now.” One possible reason for these differences in race/ethnicity groups attitudes may be a lack of cultural relevance in the instruments to which groups outside of Latinx or White participants may not relate, or perhaps a lack of professional training needed for trauma-informed attitude proficiency. Participants who marked other for race/ethnicity reported significantly more favorable attitudes in Subscale 1 than did any other subgroup. With such a substantial finding, it is difficult to discuss the reasons behind these significant differences because participants who marked other for race/ethnicity were not given the opportunity to disclose the full makeup of their racial and ethnic identity. Without this information, it is difficult to determine the direction for future follow-up. Race and Ethnicity x Job Position. There was a significant interaction between race/ethnicity and participants’ job position regarding trauma-informed attitudes in Subscale 1. Within the upper quartile of favorable attitudes, White school counselors and ME/AA teachers reported the most favorable trauma-informed attitudes in this subscale. Surprisingly, those in the lowest quartile of attitudes were Black school counselors and AI/AN teachers, who agreed with 128 statements such as “Students have had to learn how to trick or mislead others to get their needs met” and “Students could act better if they really wanted to.” White teachers displayed more favorable attitudes than did Latinx teachers and even school counselors who identified as NH/PI, AI/AN, or Asian. These findings may be due to the large percentage of White participants (59.6%), which is indicative of the California K–12 educator population. As mentioned in Chapter 2, professional development in TIP has been accelerating across California in the past 5 years, and these data may reflect this system change. Regardless, those in the lowest quartile of attitudes were non-White; for this reason, it is necessary to evaluate this finding in future research. Aside from the interaction between race/ethnicity and job position, race/ethnicity combined with Title I school experience and grade level of students also revealed significant interactions in Subscale 1. Race and Ethnicity x Title I School Experience x Grade Level. Participants in the upper quartile reporting favorable attitudes in this subscale were mainly Latinx, White, and educators who marked other for race/ethnicity. More than half (53.8%) had 10 to 15 years’ or more than 15 years’ experience working in a Title I school, with 42.8% serving at the secondary grade level, whereas 57% were currently working at the primary grade level. Those with less Title I school experience, in the upper quartile, identified as Latinx with 1 to 2, 3 to 4, or 5 to 9 years of experience, with 66% serving at the secondary level. Of the other groups in the upper quartile of favorable attitudes, those who identified as Asian, with 5 to 9 years of Title I school experience, currently working at the secondary level reported more favorable attitudes in Subscale 1 than did White or Black participants with the same years of experience and grade level of students served. This finding is particularly interesting and warrants further investigation regarding Asian Americans’ attitudes related to TIP. 129 At the other end of the scale, most participants with low Subscale 1 attitude scores were Latinx (27.5%), Black (24.1%), or Asian (20.6%), with fewer than 10 years’ Title I school experience. Most of the participants in the lower quartile (except for Black educators) worked at the primary grade level (61.5%), which is concerning because this subscale measures attitudes that agree with “Students do the right thing one day but not the next. This shows that they could control their behavior if they really wanted to.” Primary educators work with students ages 5 to 11, who, even in the absence of trauma, may struggle with their emotions due to the immature neurodevelopment in the brain’s limbic system (Hammond, 2015). Believing, for the most part, that students in this age group can control their behaviors if they really want to is troubling and invites further investigation into understanding the trauma-informed attitudes of primary educators of color with fewer than 10 years’ experience working in a Title I school. Job Position. Significant differences were seen regarding job positions between teachers and split-position participants, with teachers and school counselors reporting more favorable attitudes for Subscale 1 than participants with dual positions. This finding may be due to the training that school counselors receive in their pre-educator programs versus that received by teachers. School counselors receive specialized training using the ASCA model, which focuses on development of the whole child through not just academic development but social, emotional, and mental health development, as well. Job Position x Grade Level. When job position was combined with grade level, significant differences between groups were seen in Subscale 1. The upper third of favorable attitudes was reported by both teachers and school counselors working with primary grade students. Secondary teachers and school counselors had below-average attitude scores in Subscale 1, when compared to teachers and school counselors at the primary level. Lower 130 attitudes in Subscale 1 were reported only by split-position educators at both grade levels. This finding may be an indicator that the job of a split-position educator is less than ideal for development of attitudes needed to work with students with trauma backgrounds. Aside from grade level, job position revealed a significant interaction when combined with Title I school experience. Job Position x Title I School Experience. Teacher participants with more than 15 years’ experience reported more favorable attitudes than did school counselors or split-position educators with the same years of experience. One interesting finding was that school counselors with only 1 to 2 years’ experience reported more favorable attitudes in Subscale 1 than did school counselors with 5 to 9 years’ experience or school counselors and teachers with 10 to 15 years’ experience. This outcome may be due to the 2014 changes in the ASCA model for school counselors. The ASCA Mindsets and Behaviors for Student Success component was not fully adopted and implemented by preservice school counseling programs until the 2015-2016 school year (ASCA, 2021). Therefore, school counselors who received a school counseling credential before 2016 may not have had the training necessary to adopt certain trauma-informed attitudes that are measured in Subscale 1. Nevertheless, this outcome calls for further investigation into the factors that frame newer school counselors’ trauma-informed attitudes and a closer look at aspects that shape the attitudes of teachers with more than 15 years’ experience. Title I School Experience. Significant differences were revealed between those with 10 to 15 years’ experience and those with 1 to 2 years’ experience, as well as those with 3 to 4 years’ experience and those with 10 to 15 years’ experience. Participants with 10 to 15 years’ experience had higher favorable Subscale 1 attitudes than those with 1 to 2 years’ and 3 to 4 years’ experience groups. Participants with more than 15 years’ experience reported more 131 favorable attitudes than did those with less experience: 5 to 9 years, 3 to 4 years, or 1 to 2 years. These findings suggest that, as years of Title I school experience increase, favorable trauma- informed attitudes are likely to increase. Job Position x Gender x Title I School Experience. When combining participants’ job position, gender, and Title I school experience, significant interactions were seen among groups for Subscale 1 attitudes. Altogether, the more years of Title I school experience, the more likely an educator reported favorable trauma-informed attitudes, suggesting that years of experience foster ideal attitude development. However, when job position and gender intersected with Title I experience, a different picture emerged. Female school counselors with fewer than 5 years’ experience reported the highest favorable attitudes in Subscale 1. This finding substantiates that the group differences revealed here may be due to ASCA model changes that occurred 5 years ago. Also within the upper quartile of favorable attitudes were female teachers and female school counselors with more than 10 years’ experience. Male teachers with more than 15 years’ experience were in the 25th percentile of favorable attitudes on Subscale 1. Over all, significant differences were revealed between female and male educators, with most female participants showing higher favorable attitudes in Subscale 1 than male participants. One possible reason behind this finding is that 60.2% of participants in the study were female. Furthermore, most of participants in the bottom quartile of scores, for Subscale 1 attitudes, were males with split positions and varying years of experience, from 1 to 2 years to more than 15 years. The only females in the bottom quartile were those with split positions and 1 to 2 years’ experience. This outcome is based on previous findings for educators with split positions. Clearly, as this research study has shown thus far, educators who are fulfilling both teaching and school counseling roles are not displaying the attitudes necessary for Title I school students. Therefore, it is essential to 132 consider the factors within split positions that may produce the attitude outcomes that have been found in this study. Subscale 2: Responses to Problem Behaviors and Symptoms Trauma-informed attitudes about responding to challenging student behaviors showed a significant difference for race/ethnicity. Subscale 2 attitudes align with statements such as “Students need to experience real life consequences to function in the real world” or “Students need to experience healing relationships in order to function in the real world.” Race and Ethnicity. Latinx, White, and participants who marked other for race/ethnicity agreed with the experience of healing relationships as the product for students being able to function in the “real world.” Participants who identified as Black or Asian tended to agree more with instilling punitive consequences so that students would learn how to operate in the “real world.” However, it is important to note that Black participants, while they scored lower than the aforementioned groups, had subscale scores within 0.65 points of those of White participants, and Asian participants were within 0.67 points of White participants and 0.02 of Black participants. It is possible that, with larger subgroup sizes, Black and Asian educators’ attitudes might be the same or more favorable than those of the upper quartile groups. Gender. As seen with Subscale 1 attitudes, female participants showed more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than did male participants, implying that male educators tended to agree more with “administering punitive consequences” as the best means for eliminating undesirable student behavior than did female educators. Therefore, it is important to explore further the intentions behind male educators’ attitudes regarding how they respond to students with challenging behaviors. 133 Title I School Experience. There were significant differences among subgroups related to Title I school experience, with greater experience being associated with more favorable trauma-informed attitudes. This finding substantiates the need to examine how to assist newer educators in developing beneficial attitudes for students with trauma histories. In addition to Title I school experience, job position revealed internal significant differences among teachers, school counselors, and split-position educators in terms of Subscale 2 trauma-informed attitudes. Job Position. As seen in Subscale 1 attitudes, school counselors also reported more favorable attitudes in Subscale 2 than did teachers or split-position educators. Subscale 2 measures attitudes that agree with statements such as “I believe that I am most effective as a helper when I focus on a student’s strengths” versus “focusing on student’s problem behavior.” This finding adds to the need for pre-teacher programs to adopt mindsets and behavior standards as seen in preservice school counselor programs or for in-service school administrators to adopt practices that foster teachers’ mindsets and behaviors for working with students with trauma backgrounds. Subscale 3. On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Trauma-informed attitudes about on-the-job behavior showed significant differences among race/ethnicity subgroups. As findings revealed in the previous two subscales, participants who marked other for race/ethnicity and Latinx participants reported more favorable trauma- informed attitudes on this subscale than did other racial and ethnic groups. However, NH/PI participants reported more favorable attitudes than did White participants. This finding is particularly interesting because NH/PI educators had some of the lowest attitude scores on Subscales 1 and 2. This subscale measures attitudes that agree with undesirable statements, such as “I believe if students don’t apologize to me after they act out, I look like a fool in front of 134 others” or positive attitude statements such as “I realize that students may not be able to apologize to me after they act out.” Therefore, it is important to expand this finding in future investigations of NH/PI educators’ attitudes related to TIP. Race and Ethnicity x Grade Level. Unique to this subscale was the significant interaction between race/ethnicity group and grade level of students. The upper quartile of favorable attitudes was reported by White participants who worked with primary grade-level students and Latinx participants who worked with secondary grade-level students. Groups in the lower quartile of attitudes were ME/AA educators who worked at the secondary level and AI/AN, NH/PI, and Asian educators at the primary level. The most notable differences were among Asian, NH/PI, and White educators. Asian and NH/PI participants teaching at the secondary level showed 1-point more favorable attitudes than did participants of the same race/ethnicity at the primary grade level. On the other hand, White participants at the primary level showed 1-point more favorable attitudes than did White educators at the secondary level. However, it is important to mention that many participants in all racial and ethnic groups served at the secondary level, which may explain why most groups at the secondary level had more favorable attitudes than those at the primary level. Other than White participants, Black and ME/AA educators at the primary level had more favorable attitudes than did those of the same race/ethnicity at the secondary level. Race and Ethnicity x Gender x Title I School Experience. Exclusive to Subscale 3 was significant interactions among race/ethnicity, gender, and Title I school experience. Of those participants in the upper quartile of favorable attitudes, 96.2% were female and Latinx or female and those who identified as other for race/ethnicity, with 10 to 15 years’ or more than 15 years’ Title I school experience. Educators in the lower quartile of unfavorable attitudes, were those 135 with fewer than 10 years of Title I school experience (74.2%); of this group, only 34.2% had 1 to 2 years’ experience, with the majority (71.4%) being AI/AN, Asian, Black, or ME/AA males. This finding validates the need to explore the various factors influencing years of experience and race/ethnicity that may be responsible for male educators’ less favorable trauma-informed attitudes compared to female educators’ trauma-informed attitudes. Job Position. School counselors reported more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than did teachers or educators with split positions. Yet, when grade level was combined with job position, a significant interaction occurred. Grade Level x Job Position. School counselors at the primary grade level reported more favorable attitudes than did teachers at the primary level or school counselors and teachers at the secondary level. Split-position educators reported less favorable attitudes than did school counselors at either grade level, as well as primary grade-level teachers. However, teachers at the secondary level reported poorer attitudes, albeit at a small difference, than did split-position educators. Together, these findings highlight the need to explore the factors driving secondary educators’ trauma-informed attitudes, compared to those of primary educators. While, for some participants, the obvious factor may be that the students at the secondary level are older, and therefore need less empathy, the literature on TIP in secondary schools has provided an emphasis on the significance of educator empathy for students with trauma histories as a product for successful student outcomes. Delving further into secondary educators’ trauma-informed attitudes may lead to future development of in-service and pre-educator programs that can strengthen secondary educators’ TIP. Job Position x Gender x Title I School Experience. Significant interactions were seen among job position, gender, and Title I school experience, again with most educators in the 136 upper quartile of favorable scores being female school counselors and teachers with 10 to 15 or more years’ Title I school experience. Male teachers with more than 15 years’ experience were included in the upper 25th percentile of favorable attitudes. The most notable findings for this group were that male counselors with more than 15 years’ experience showed poorer trauma- informed attitudes (by 2 points) than male counselors with fewer than 10 years’ experience. Yet, male teachers with more than 15 years’ experience reported more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than male counselors with the same years of experience. With this finding, it is important to explore the possible reasons behind trauma-informed attitudes of male teachers and male school counselors with more than 15 years Title I school experience. Subscale 4: Self-Efficacy at Work Significant differences for Subscale 4 were revealed between Latinx and Black and AI/AN participants, with Latinx participants showing more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than Black or AI/AN participants. Differences were also seen among White, Black, and AI/AN educators, with White educators reporting more favorable attitudes than Black or AI/AN educators. Subscale 4 measured trauma-informed attitudes that, on the favorable end, matched attitudes that agree with statements such as “I have the skills to help my students” and “If I told my colleagues how hard my job is, they would support me” to unfavorable attitude statements such as “I do not have the skills to help my students” and “If I told my colleagues how hard my job is, they would think I wasn’t cut out for the job.” Based on these findings, it is important to examine further the reasons why Black, Asian, and AI/AN educators may feel less efficacious in working with students with trauma backgrounds than do White or Latinx educators. Gender. Significant differences were revealed between male and female educators, with female educators showing slightly more favorable attitudes regarding self-efficacy when working 137 with students with trauma histories than male educators. Unlike the previous subscale scores, this particular subscale yielded minimal differences between females and males, suggesting that male educators were relatively as efficacious as female educators. Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work Grade level revealed a significant interaction with Title I experience and job position for trauma-informed attitudes regarding how participants cope with the demands of working with students with trauma histories. Ideal attitudes in this subscale support statements such as “The best way to deal with feeling burnt out at work is to seek support,” whereas unfavorable attitudes agree with statements that align with “The best way to deal with feeling burnt out at work is not to dwell on it and it will pass.” Job Position x Grade Level x Title I School Experience. The most notable outcome for Subscale 5 was that secondary educators with a split position and 3 to 4 years’ experience showed more favorable attitudes than secondary teachers or primary split position educators with the same years of experience. This finding may be due to the perseverance that is needed to carry out the daily duties of a teacher and a school counselor, suggesting that this action may be due to split-position educators’ internal tenacity that may carry over to the self-efficacy needed to work with students with trauma histories. As with the previous subscales, significant differences were revealed among race/ethnicity groups, gender groups, and groups with various years of Title I school experience. Results for race/ethnicity groups revealed the same outcomes as all previous subscales, with participants who marked other for race/ethnicity showing the most favorable attitudes, followed by Latinx and White participants. Within gender groups and Title I school experience, female educators with more than 10 years’ experience reported more ideal attitudes 138 for Subscale 5 than male participants and those with fewer than 10 years of Title I school experience. Subscale 6: Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices This subscale measures trauma-informed attitudes by participants who currently implement TIP at their school sites. Favorable attitudes agree with statements such as “Students react positively to the trauma-informed practices approach” and “I am able to carry out all my responsibilities with respect to the trauma-informed practices approach.” Less favorable attitudes agree with statements such as “Students react negatively to the trauma-informed practices approach” and “I am not able to carry out all my responsibilities with respect to the trauma- informed practices approach.” Therefore, while the same racial and ethnic groups displayed more favorable trauma-informed attitudes, responses to this subscale showed that Asian, Black, and AI/AN educators may be lacking in a trauma-informed approach that works best for their students. This outcome supports the need to examine further this group of educators and to identify factors that may or may not contribute to these results. The most interesting finding, and distinctive to this subscale, was that educators with 5 to 9 years’ Title I school experience reported more favorable attitudes than did educators with 10 to 15 years’ experience and slightly higher scores than did educators with more than 15 years’ experience. Within this subscale, those with 1 to 2 years’ or 3 to 4 years’ experience reported poorer trauma-informed attitudes than those with more experience. These findings suggest that, as educators approach the 5-year mark, their attitudes measured by this subscale align with those of veteran educators. It is important to explore further the reasons behind this unique finding. 139 Subscale 7: Systemwide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices This subscale measures trauma-informed attitudes by participants who currently implement TIP at their school sites and gauges their attitudes of how supportive or unsupportive the school environment is for supporting TIP. Favorable attitudes agree with statements such as “I have enough support to implement trauma-informed practices” and “When I feel like I can’t handle this alone, I can go to my colleagues and/or administrator(s) for help.” Less-than-ideal attitudes agree with statements such as “I do not have enough support to implement trauma- informed practices with my students” and “There is not much support from my administrator(s) for my work.” Job Position x Grade Level x Title I School Experience. The most noteworthy results in this subscale were that secondary teachers with fewer than 4 years’ experience reported unfavorable attitudes, whereas primary teachers with 10 to 15 years’ and more than 15 years’ experience revealed more favorable attitudes than did primary teachers with less experience, suggesting that more experienced teachers may be the best mentors to assist school administrators in fostering ideal trauma-informed attitudes in less experienced primary teachers. The opposite was shown with secondary teachers and school counselors with more than 15 years’ experience, as they reported less favorable attitudes than did secondary school counselors with 1 to 2 years’ experience or secondary teachers with 5 to 9 years’ experience. These results should be explored further to understand the reasons behind the decrease in attitudes for schoolwide trauma-informed support by more experienced secondary school counselors and teachers. Race and Ethnicity. Of all of the trauma-informed attitudes measured by the ARTIC, the attitudes assessed in Subscale 7 had the lowest scores across all race/ethnicity groups. Significant 140 differences among race/ethnicity groups were identified, with Asian participants showing more favorable attitudes, followed by White, Latinx, and Black participants. However, the most important takeaway from these results is that the educators did not believe that their school environment (colleagues and administrators) was supportive of their TIP. Based on this finding, it is critical to engage in future research to identify factors that may manifest such beliefs. Discussion The results of this study offer important implications for preservice educator programs, in-service educators, and K–12 education leaders in their efforts to understand how to promote and foster culturally responsive self-efficacy and trauma-informed attitudes in U.S. K–12 Title I educators. The following sections discuss the important implications related to each hypothesis test. Hypothesis 1. Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP Will Predict Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP With self-efficacy beliefs in CRP as a strong predictor of trauma-informed attitudes, preservice educator programs and K–12 leaders are encouraged to focus on developing educators’ self-efficacy in CRP. To begin the development of self-efficacy in CRP, descriptive analysis of item-specific CRTSE scores is an ideal starting point. CRTSE strength index scores for the sample participants were in the low-to-average range. Therefore, it is critical to examine what challenges and barriers U.S. Title I teachers and school counselors are facing that hinder their development in culturally responsive self-efficacy. Findings from item-specific CRTSE scores may lead to important implications for K–12 leaders and credential programs to increase emphasis in the areas of building cultural connections and cultural enrichment, as well as how to identify culturally appropriate assessment materials. 141 Centering item-specific CRTSE responses may inform the design of efficacy-building interventions and justify the need to develop new professional training or courses or modify existing training or courses to expose in-service and preservice educators to specific aspects of CRP. As the findings have shown, self-efficacy beliefs in CRP is the conduit through which trauma-informed attitudes thrive among K–12 Title I educators. The prediction model presented in this study, considering the strength of culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes related to TIP, must be considered when developing curricula for both preservice and in-service teaching and school counseling practices that involve U.S. Title I students. In addition, the prediction model must be considered when analyzing education policies that involve measures in the school accountability model. Findings from both the CRTSE and ARTIC scales can be used to inform development of a model for culturally responsive TIP, using CRP and self-efficacy theory as a conceptual framework for preservice program coursework, as well as cultivating self-efficacy development in the duties for teacher and school counselor credential requirements. Furthermore, findings from both instruments can be used to inform development of a model for culturally responsive TIP, using CRP and self-efficacy theory as a conceptual framework for a whole-school approach for K–12 leaders. Hypothesis 2.1. The Number of Training Events in CRP Attended Will Predict Self- Efficacy Beliefs in CRP Another important implication stems from the prediction model for the number of CRP training events attended and educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. The number of CRP training events attended is a strong predictor of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP. Therefore, it is important for K–12 leaders to assess in-service educators’ CRTSE strength index following CRP training. 142 From this assessment, school leaders may be able to identify in-service educators’ overall self- efficacy in CRP, as well as item-specific means to determine which competencies need strengthening during professional development or areas in which educators need more support. Focusing on item-specific responses may inform the design of efficacy-building interventions and justify the need to revise current professional development or develop a new CRP training curriculum altogether. In addition to self-efficacy beliefs in CRP, the number of CRP training events attended is also a strong predictor of trauma-informed attitudes. Hypothesis 2.2. The Number of Training Events in CRP Attended Will Predict Attitudes Related to TIP This research study highlights the important relationship between self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. Fundamentally, findings support CRP as the conduit through which TIP are implemented. Therefore, following training in CRP, it is important for K–12 leaders to assess educators’ attitudes related to TIP. Together, these data can help to set the stage for future directions in schoolwide practices, as well as to determine where to strengthen or maintain systems to foster a supportive school environment for both CRP and TIP. Hypothesis 3.1. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP by the Degree of Implementation and Schoolwide Support for CRP Findings related to Hypothesis 3.1 offer important implications for preservice credential programs and K–12 education leaders. Fostering a supportive school environment for CRP is vital for development of educators’ self-efficacy in CRP. K–12 leaders can promote this support by offering more opportunities for teacher-school counselor collaborations to discuss best practices in CRP. Timely and constructive feedback on educator performances offered by K–12 leaders could help to nurture teachers’ and school counselors’ confidence in CRP, thus 143 improving their trauma-informed attitudes. Collaboration by colleagues may also provide accountability for support needed when one might feel overwhelmed or lost. Individual meetings between school leaders and educators, as well as classroom and school counseling observations and opportunities for professional development, may promote schoolwide support for CRP. Credential programs can support new educators in ways to implement and maintain a supportive environment for CRP. In addition, practicum requirements and/or internship hours should involve observations of supportive environments for CRP, as well as interviews with in-service educators with 10 or more years’ Title I school experience. Hypothesis 3.2. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP by the Degree of Implementation and Schoolwide Support for CRP Findings related to Hypothesis 3.2 support the conclusion that a supportive school environment for CRP provides the necessary setting for favorable trauma-informed attitudes to thrive. An environment that supports CRP allows K–12 Title I educators to deliver TIP that are culturally responsive for students. K–12 leaders can optimize this finding by nurturing a supportive school environment for CRP. Furthermore, ensuring that policies and procedures are in place to foster educators’ confidence in CRP, such as early intervention strategies, collaboration among colleagues and leaders, and professional development opportunities, are highly recommended to promote a supportive culturally responsive environment. K–12 leadership behaviors, such as providing timely and constructive feedback on practices, showing genuine concerns for educators, and extending opportunities to work with educators individually, could foster both teachers’ and school counselors’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and trauma- informed attitudes. 144 Hypothesis 4.1. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in CRP by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Years of Title I School Experience, Job Position, and Grade Level Altogether, understanding the historical and contextual factors that influence the identity development of the various race/ethnicity groups that make up U.S. Title I educators, as well as the emotional and social factors that they experience as they progress through their careers, is key in supporting their success in culturally responsive self-efficacy development. Results related to Hypothesis 4.1 identified significant differences in educators’ strength of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP among race/ethnicity, Title I school experience, and gender groups. Race and Ethnicity Latinx and White educators were shown to have higher self-efficacy for CRP than other race/ethnicity groups, whereas Black, Asian, and AI/AN participants were among those with the lowest self-efficacy in CRP. This is an important finding that calls for exploration into the barriers faced by Black, Asian, and AI/AN educators. Based on these findings, it is important to explore why educators of color may feel less efficacious than White or Latinx educators in working with students with trauma backgrounds. Title I School Experience Educators with more than 9 years’ Title I school experience reported stronger self- efficacy beliefs in CRP than did educators with less experience. This is an important implication for K–12 leaders to create mentorship opportunities that include experienced educators and those with less experience. Gender In general, school counselors and female educators displayed higher self-efficacy in CRP and trauma-informed attitudes than did male educators, teachers, and those with split positions. It 145 is important for preservice teacher programs and K–12 education leaders to improve efforts in the development of student mindsets and behaviors, as seen in school counseling programs, and to explore the reasons behind lower self-efficacy for CRP in male educators. Hypothesis 4.2. There Is a Difference in Educators’ Attitudes Related to TIP by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Years of Title I School Experience, Job Position, and Grade Level Of all the trauma-informed attitudes measured by the ARTIC scale, the attitudes assessed in Subscale 7 showed the lowest scores across all race/ethnicity groups. Essentially, these educators did not agree that their school environment (support from colleagues and administrators) is supportive of TIP. As a result of this finding, it is critical to engage in future research to pinpoint the factors that may manifest such beliefs and to devise ways to improve the school environment to support TIP. Gender, Job Position, and Title I School Experience Male teachers with more than 15 years’ Title I experience reported more favorable trauma-informed attitudes than did male counselors with the same years of experience. This finding may be due to various factors such as a lack of support for CRP from colleagues and administrators or burnout due to state and federal mandates as seen within the school accountability model. Based on this finding, it is important to investigate the possible reasons behind the trauma-informed attitudes of male teachers and male school counselors with more than 15 years’ Title I school experience. Furthermore, secondary teachers and school counselors with more than 15 years’ experience reported less favorable attitudes than did secondary school counselors with 1 to 2 years’ experience or secondary teachers with 5 to 9 years’ experience. Therefore, identifying factors that lead to less desirable attitudes among veteran educators and factors that make up 146 newer educators’ trauma-informed attitudes is important in understanding where K–12 leaders should devise opportunities for professional development. Job Position and Grade Level School counselors at the primary grade level reported more favorable attitudes than did teachers at the primary level or school counselors or teachers at the secondary level. This finding validates the need to explore factors that may be responsible for primary school counselors’ trauma-informed attitudes, as compared to those of primary and secondary educators. Grade Level Across all race/ethnicity groups, secondary educators had below-average trauma- informed attitudes, compared to those of educators at the primary grade level. Delving into secondary educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and trauma-informed attitudes may lead to future development of in-service and preservice educator programs that can strengthen secondary educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes related to TIP. Suggestions for Future Research While TIP offer an important lens to support young students who have been harmed or emotionally injured, such practices can lack in diversity, equity, and inclusion needed to support SOC. According to Gin wright (2018), the term trauma-informed is similar to saying, “You are the worst thing that ever happened to you.” For this reason, the term can be deficit based, rather than asset driven, in strategies to support students who have been harmed. Also, current formulations of TIP presume that the trauma is an individual experience, rather than a collective one. Viewing trauma individually fails to capture how collective harm requires a different approach than individual harm. Recognizing collective harm considers the environmental context that caused the harm in the first place. By treating only the individual student, only half of the 147 equation is addressed, leaving the toxic systems, policies, and practices in place. What is needed is an approach that allows educators to promote TIP through a holistic view of healing from traumatic experiences and environments. One approach is called healing-centered practices, as opposed to a trauma-informed approach (Gin wright, 2018). A healing-centered approach uses a culturally responsive methodology to center practices involving culture, spirituality, civic action, and collective healing. Without careful consideration of the term trauma-informed, educators can create blind spots in their effort to support marginalized students. Education researchers have studied various elements of the experiences of U.S. educators in Title I schools; however, further research is necessary to examine and understand how those factors influence self-efficacy beliefs and healing-centered attitudes. There are several ways to build on the findings of this study by researchers who wish to understand the unique experiences of U.S. Title I educators. First, a mixed-methods longitudinal study could expand the operational definition of culturally responsive self-efficacy to include healing-centered attitudes. Data collected through a combination of self-report surveys, interviews, and case studies could provide more complete understanding of the research problem, as well as personal and contextual factors that may not have been accounted for through a self-report survey alone (Creswell, 2014). For example, this study showed significant differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP between males and females and between school counselors and teachers, along with differences in self-efficacy between Latinx and White educators and other educators of color, with females, school counselors, and Latinx and White educators showing higher self-efficacy in CRP than male educators, teachers, or other educators of color. Follow-up interviews with male educators and teachers and educators of color could uncover and interpret the meaning behind 148 these findings. Qualitative inquiry can only add to more robust findings that this study was unable to uncover due to the methodology employed. In this study, there was a strong support for Title I educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP as a predictor for healing-centered attitudes. Exploring educators’ perceptions of Title I students’ academic performance and behaviors and how those perceptions influence their culturally responsive teaching and school counseling practices, as well as their healing-centered attitudes, could be a productive direction for future research. Interviewing K–12 leaders regarding their experience in assisting Title I educators and what they have found to be effective and challenging in CRP development is a good direction for future inquiry. In addition to K–12 leaders, Title I students and their parents/guardians should be interviewed about their classroom and school counseling experiences to add to understanding best practices in CRP and healing- centered systems for Title I students. Although this study examined various demographic variables (e.g., race/ethnicity gender, job position, years of experience, grade level) and found significant correlations, more research is necessary to explore the many identities of U.S. Title I educators and how those intersectionalities affect and complicate their teaching and school counseling experiences. Conclusion The goal of this study was to explore variables that have been identified to influence the relationship between Title I educators’ self-efficacy in CRP and attitudes related to healing- centered practices and to examine those variables in relation to experiences of U.S. Title I educators. Specifically, this quantitative research study explored the influence of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on healing-centered attitudes of educators working in Title I schools in California. The findings showed that culturally responsive self-efficacy and the number of CRP training 149 events attended were significant predictors of healing-centered attitudes. Furthermore, school counselors, primary grade-level teachers, and female educators combined reported stronger self- efficacy beliefs in CRP and more favorable attitudes related to healing-centered practices than did secondary grade-level teachers or male educators. The supportive schoolwide environment for CRP yielded significant positive differences in educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and healing-centered attitudes. Even though the sample consisted predominantly of White females, Latinx educators reported higher self-efficacy in CRP and more favorable attitudes for healing-centered practices than did White, Black, Asian, or AI/AN educators. Black, Asian, and AI/AN participants reported the lowest self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes for healing-centered practices. These are important findings because U.S. Title I educators are among the largest educator groups in the United States, and their complex histories and identities significantly influence their self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and healing-centered practices for students at U.S. Title I schools. Therefore, it is important for future studies to explore the complex histories and identities of educators of color and how such variables may influence self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and healing-centered attitudes. Altogether, the findings of this study provide a glimpse of what U.S. Title I educators experience, but there is still much more to unpack, especially in examining various social contexts, such as race/ethnicity, gender, education history, trauma backgrounds, and the sociopolitical climate of K–12 public education. For example, with U.S. Title I teachers at the secondary grade level reporting lower self-efficacy in CRP and less favorable attitudes for healing-centered practices, it is problematic that the students in those schools are lacking in factors that make up the school accountability model, thus labeling the school as a “low- 150 performing” school. Further studies are needed to identify possible barriers that Title I teachers and school counselors face and to assess the type of support needed for school leaders and educators to engage in systematic practices that support self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and healing- centered attitudes for the students in those schools. Researchers, leaders of preservice educator programs, in-service educators, and K–12 leaders are encouraged to gain deeper understanding of the variables that were examined in this study and how to apply them in their practices to engage and support U.S. Title I educators in fostering their confidence in CRP so that they can implement healing-centered practices that are ideal for students in Title I schools. The foundation of student learning and success is grounded in pedagogical practices that students and their families can relate to and appreciate. CRP is one piece of the education debt that is owed to CLDSOC who make up the majority of the student population in U.S. Title I schools. Ultimately, CRP is the conduit that all educator practices must embrace so that all students, especially CLDSOC, can experience a successful and empowering K–12 journey. 151 References Abramovitz, M., & Albrecht, J. (2013). The community loss index: A new social indicator. Social Service Review, 87(4), 677-724. https://doi.org/10.1086/674112 Adams, E. J. (2010). Healing invisible wounds: Why investing in trauma-informed care for children makes sense. Justice Policy Institute. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). Dissemination planning tool: Exhibit A from Volume 4—Programs, tools, and products. https://www.ahrq.gov/patient- safety/resources/advances/vol4/planning.html Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1-24). Teachers College Press. Alim, T. N., Graves, E., Mellman, T. A., Aigbogun, N., Gray, E., Lawson, W., & Charney, D. S. (2006). Trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression in an African- American primary care population. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98(10), 1630-1636. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17052054/ American School Counselors Association. (2016). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-School-Counseling/Ethical-Legal- Responsibilities/ASCA-Ethical-Standards-for-School-Counselors-(1) American School Counselors Association. (2021). ASCA student standards; mindsets and behaviors for student success. 152 Anderson, E., Blitz, L., & 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. https://www.adi.org/journal/2015fw/AndersonEtAlFall2015.pdf Anthony, J. L. (2016). For which children of economic disadvantage and in which instructional contexts does Earobics Step 1 improve kindergarteners’ literacy? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(1), 54-76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345747.2015.1055637 Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge. Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163- 206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066 Baker, C. N., Brown, S. M., Overstreet, S., Wilcox, P. D., & New Orleans Trauma- Informed Schools Learning Collaborative. (2020). Validation of the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care scale (ARTIC). Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 13(5), 505-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000989 Baker, C. N., Brown, S. M., Wilcox, P. D., Overstreet, S., & Arora, P. (2016). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) scale. School Mental Health, 8(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9161-0 153 Bales, B. L., & Saffold, F. (2011). A new era in the preparation of teachers for urban schools: Linking multiculturalism, disciplinary-based content, and pedagogy. Urban Education, 46(5), 953-974. http://118.70.164.91/bitstream/DHGD/4846/1/TeacherEducation11302.pdf Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 Banks, J. A. (2010). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 233-258). Wiley. Baweja, R., Mayes, S. D., Hameed, U., & Waxmonsky, J. G. (2016). Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder: Current insights. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 12, 2115-2124. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27601906/ Beachum, F. D. (2018). The Every Student Succeeds Act and multicultural education: A critical race theory analysis. Teachers College Record, 120(13), 1-18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/016146811812001308 154 Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C. Y. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond the nice counselor syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 372-381. http://edresearch.yolasite.com/resources/BemakChung.pdf Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2022). Why focus on K-12 education? https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/us-program/k-12-education Blankstein, A., & Noguera, P. (2004). Reclaiming the promise of public education: The will is the way for schools where failure is not an option. School Administrator, 61(5), 31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ703142 Blitz, L. V., Anderson, E. M., & Saastamoinen, M. (2016). Assessing perceptions of culture and trauma in an elementary school: Informing a model for culturally responsive trauma- informed schools. The Urban Review, 48(4), 520-542. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116945 Blitz, L. V., Yull, D., & Clauhs, M. (2020). Bringing sanctuary to school: Assessing school climate as a foundation for culturally responsive trauma-informed approaches for urban schools. Urban Education. 55(1), 95-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916651323 Bloom, S. L. (1995). Creating sanctuary in the school. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 1, 403-433. https://vtnea.org/uploads/files/ 1995%20Bloom%20Sanctuary%20in%20the%20Classroom.pdf Bottiani, J., Larson, K., Debnam, K., Bischoff, C., & Bradshaw, C. (2018). Promoting educators’ use of culturally responsive practices: A systematic review of in-service interventions. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 367-385. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022487117722553 155 Bui, Y. N., & Fagan, Y. M. (2013). The effects of an integrated reading comprehension strategy: A culturally responsive teaching approach for fifth-grade students’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2012.664581 Burch, B., Naser, S., & Overstreet, S. (2010). Children and disasters: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0393-8_2 Burke, N. J., Hellman, J. L., Scott, B. G., Weems, C. F., & Carrion, V. G. (2011). The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(6), 408-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.02.006 Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). A review of the literature on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Teaching for Excellence and Equity, 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16151-4_2 Byrd, C. M. (2016). Does culturally relevant teaching work? An examination from student perspectives. Sage Open, 6(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016660744 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017). How to become a teacher in California. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/teach California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2020). Pupil personnel services. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pupil-personnel-services California Department of Education. (2019a). 2019 dashboard: Data files and record layouts. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/datafiles2019.asp 156 California Department of Education. (2019b). Certificated staff by ethnicity for 2018-19. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Staff/StaffByEth.aspx?cLevel=State&cYear=2018- 19&cChoice=StateNum&cType=P&cGender=B&Submit=1 California Department of Education. (2021). Closing the achievement gap. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/av/mm/achievementgap2.asp Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00028312042002305 California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. (2021). CEBC assessment tool: Attitudes related to Trauma Informed Care Artic Scale. https://www.cebc4cw.org/ assessment-tool/attitudes-related-to-trauma-informed-care-artic-scale/ Californians for Justice. (2021). Achievement gap. https://caljustice.org/issues/achievement-gap/ Carter, H., & Bedford, M. (2019). Opening the window to a wider world than our little classroom: The importance of culturally relevant pedagogy. Emerging Voices in Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.17918/ybdn-tx35 Cavanaugh, B. (2016). Trauma-informed classrooms and schools. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 41- 46. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561602500206 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Adverse childhood experiences reported by adults—Five states, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(49), 1609. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5949a1.htm 157 Cholewa, B., Goodman, R. D., West-Olatunji, C., & Amatea, E. (2014). A qualitative examination of the impact of culturally responsive educational practices on the psychological well-being of students of color. The Urban Review, 46(4), 574-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0272-y Chu, S., & Garcia, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 218-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513520511 Clark, M., Moe, J., & Hays, D. G. (2017). The relationship between counselors’ multicultural counseling competence and poverty beliefs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 56(4), 259-273. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12084 Clayton, J. K. (2011). Changing diversity in U.S. schools: The impact on elementary student performance and achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43, 671-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013 124510380909 Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tesq.223 Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 295-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104268057 Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Helping traumatized children learn safe, supportive learning environments that benefit all children. Massachusetts Advocates for Children Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. 158 Cole, S. F., O’Brien, J. G., Gadd, M. G., Ristuccia, J., Wallace, D. L., & Gregory, M. (2005). Helping traumatized children learn: Supportive school environments for children traumatized by family violence. Massachusetts Advocates for Children Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. Collins, J. (1988). Language and class in minority education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19(4), 299-326. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1988.19.4.05x0914d Colvin, R. L. (2010). A 10-year climb: Education leadership reaches the national reform agenda. In The Wallace Foundation (Ed.), Education leadership: An agenda for school improvement (pp. 6-17). The Wallace Foundation. Copeland, W. E., Keeler, G., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2007). Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(5), 577-584. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.5.577 Crenshaw, K. (2011). Twenty years of critical race theory: Looking back to move forward. Connecticut Law Review, 43(5), 1253–1352. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/117/ Crenshaw, K. (2017). On intersectionality: Essential writings. The New Press. Cressey, J. (2019). Developing culturally responsive social, emotional, and behavioral supports. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2019-0015 Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage. 159 Crosby, S. D., Howell, P., & Thomas, S. (2018). Social justice education through trauma- informed teaching. Middle School Journal, 49(4), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2018.1488470 Cruz, R., Manchanda, S., Firestone, A., & Rodl, J. (2020). An examination of teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(3), 197-214. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085916651323 Dabach, D. B., & Callahan, R. M. (2011). Rights versus reality: The gap between civil rights. https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/etag/_files/pdfs/articles/2011/CallahanDabach2011.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., LaFors, J., & Snyder, J. (2001). Educating teachers for California’s future. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 9-55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478334 de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770326 Dee, T. S., & Penner, E. K. (2017). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 127-166. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216677002 Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New Press. Delpit, L. (2012). Multiplication is for White people: Raising expectations for other people’s children. The New Press. Dixon, A. L., Tucker, C., & Clark, M. A. (2010). Integrating social justice advocacy with national standards of practice: Implications for school counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(2), 103-115. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25404-003 160 Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9177-0 Drury, S. S., Theall, K., Gleason, M. M., Smyke, A. T., De Vivo, I., Wong, J. Y. Y., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., & Nelson, C. A. (2012). Telomere length and early severe social deprivation: linking early adversity and cellular aging. Molecular Psychiatry, 17(7), 719- 727. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2011.53 Duane, A., Casimir, A. E., Mims, L. C., Kaler-Jones, C., & Simmons, D. (2021). Beyond deep breathing: A new vision for equitable, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed mindfulness practice. Middle School Journal, 52(3), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2021.1893593 Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Simon & Schuster. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital. Ed Trust-West. (2021). The majority report: Supporting the success of Latino students in California. https://west.edtrust.org/resource/the-majority-report/ EdSource. (2019). Database: California’s lowest-performing schools in 2018-2019. https://edsource.org/2019/database-californias-lowest-performing-schools/608316 161 Estrada, P., & Wang, H. (2018). Making English learner reclassification to fluent English proficient attainable or elusive: When meeting criteria is and is not enough. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 207-242. https://www.sri.com/publication/making- english-learner-reclassification-to-fluent-english-proficient-attainable-or-elusive-when- meeting-criteria-is-and-is-not-enough/ Faltis, C. J., & Valdés, G. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators. In C. J. Faltis & G. Valdés (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 549-592). AERA. 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: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9635069/ Fitchett, P. G., Starker, T. V., & Salyers, B. (2012). Examining culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy in a preservice social studies education course. Urban Education, 47(3), 585-611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912436568 Foxx, S. P., Saunders, R., & Lewis, C. W. (2020). Race, gender, class and achievement: A culturally responsive approach to urban school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 23(Part 2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X19899184 Fresno Unified School District. (2021). Local control and accountability plan. https://stafed.fresnounified.org/lcap Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.) Pearson Education. 162 Gándara, P. C., & Aldana, U. S. (2014). Who’s segregated now? Latinos, language, and the future of integrated schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 735-748. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X14549957 Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003 Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching principles, practices, and effects. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 353-372). Routledge Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555246 Gherardi, S. A., Flinn, R. E., & Jaure, V. B. (2020). Trauma-sensitive schools and social justice: A critical analysis. The Urban Review, 52(3), 482-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00553-3 Giacona, R. M., Reinherz, H. Z., Silverman, A. B., Pakiz, B., Frost, A. K., & Cohen, E. (1995). Traumas and posttraumatic stress disorder in a community population of older adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(10), 1369-1380. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199510000-00023 Ginwright, S. (2018). The future of healing: Shifting from trauma informed care to healing centered engagement. https://ginwright.medium.com/the-future-of-healing-shifting-from- trauma-informed-care-to-healing-centered-engagement-634f557ce69c 163 Hammer, J. H., Springer, J., Beck, N. C., Menditto, A., & Coleman, J. (2011). The relationship between seclusion and restraint use and childhood abuse among psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(3), 567-579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510363419 Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press. Harris, N. B. (2018). The deepest well: Healing the long-term effects of childhood adversity. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Havlik, S. A., Malott, K., Yee, T., DeRosato, M., & Crawford, E. (2019). School counselor training in professional advocacy: The role of the counselor educator. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 6(1), 71-85. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2326716X.2018.1564710 Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools. (2021). Program overview. https://hearts.ucsf.edu/program-overview Hill, M. L. (2009). Wounded healing: Forming a storytelling community in hip-hop lit. Teachers College Record, 111, 248-293. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ826004 Hollins, E. R. (2015). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning (3rd ed.). Routledge. Hoover, S. A., Sapere, H., Lang, J. M., Nadeem, E., Dean, K. L., & Vona, P. (2018). Statewide implementation of an evidence-based trauma intervention in schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 44. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-14403-005 164 Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African American students’ perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review 33(2), 131-149. http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.3114&rep=rep1&type=pdf Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. Teachers College Press. Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race Ethnicity and Education 10(3), 295-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503264 International Business Machines. (n.d.). SPSS statistics: Overview. https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics Jackson, T. O. (2011). Developing sociopolitical consciousness at freedom schools: Implications for culturally responsive teacher preparation. Teaching Education, 22(3), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.585634 Jackson, Y. (2015). The pedagogy of confidence: Inspiring high intellectual performance in urban schools. Teachers College Press. Jackson, Y., & McDermott, V. (2015). Unlocking student potential: How do I identify and activate student strengths? ASCD. Jaycox, L. H., Kataoka, S. H., Stein, B. D., Langley, A. K., & Wong, M. (2012). Cognitive behavioral intervention for trauma in schools. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(3), 239-255. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-22384-003 165 Jennings, A. (2007). Models for developing trauma-informed behavioral health systems and trauma-specific services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.theannainstitute.org/MDT2.pdf Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering cross cultural competence in preservice teachers through multicultural education experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 197-204. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225384737_Fostering_Cross_Cultural_Compet ence_in_Preservice_Teachers_Through_Multicultural_Education_Experiences King, J. E. (2010). Mis-education or the development of critical race consciousness: Curriculum as heritage knowledge. In K. L. Buras, J. Randals, & Ya Salaam, K. (Eds.), Pedagogy, policy and the privatized city: Stories of dispossession and defiance from New Orleans (pp. 126-130). Teachers College Press. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. (2017). The state of science: Implicit bias review. https://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/article/2017-state-science-implicit-bias- review Knight, C. (2019). Trauma informed practice and care: Implications for field instruction. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(1), 79-89. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10615-018-0661-x Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., Brymer, M. J., & Layne, C. M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396 166 Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 341-359. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-14653-002 Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Liberatory consequences of literacy: A case of culturally relevant instruction for African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 61(3), 378-391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295255 Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675 Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465 Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-123). Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). The power of pedagogy: Does teaching matter? In W. H. Watkins & J. H. Lewis (Eds.), Race and education: The roles of history and society in educating African American students (pp. 73-88). Allyn & Bacon. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Reading, writing, and race: Literacy practices of teachers in a diverse classroom. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Routledge. 167 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006a). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035007003 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006b). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104- 109. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104 Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Wiley. Ladson-Billings, G. (2017). “Makes me wanna holler”: Refuting the “culture of poverty” discourse in urban schooling. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217718793 Lerner, R. M. (2015). Promoting positive human development and social justice: Integrating theory, research and application in contemporary developmental science. International Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 165-173. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25782450/ Lipschitzs, D. S., Winegar, R. K., Hartnick, E., Foote, B., & Southwick, S. M. (1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in hospitalized adolescents: Psychiatric comorbidity and clinical correlates. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(4), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199904000-00010 Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting methods to practice. Sage. 168 López, F., & Santibañez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323702816_Teacher_preparation_for_emergent _bilingual_students_Implications_of_evidence_for_policy Los Angeles Unified School District. (2021). New LCAP / LCAP home. https://achieve.lausd.net/lcap Losen, D. J. (2015). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. Teachers College Press. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98-109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271667021_Preparing_Linguistically_Responsi ve_Teachers_Laying_the_Foundation_in_Preservice_Teacher_Education Mar, D. (2018). Racial diversity and academic test scores in public elementary schools. Applied Economics Letters, 25, 768-771. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1366632 Markowitz, L., & Puchner, L. (2014). Racial diversity in the schools: A necessary evil? Multicultural Perspectives, 16(2), 72-78. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/262577641_Racial_Diversity_in_the_Schools_A_Necessary_Evil Massachusetts Advocates for Children and Harvard Law School. (2013). Trauma & learning. https://www.massadvocates.org/tlpi Maynard, B. R., Farina, A., Dell, N. A., & Kelly, M. S. (2019). Effects of trauma‐informed approaches in schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1-2). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1018 169 Mayor, C. (2018). Whitewashing trauma: Applying neoliberalism, governmentality, and whiteness theory to trauma training for teachers. Whiteness and Education, 3(2), 198- 216. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23793406.2019.1573643 McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., & Hinz, S. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). National Center for Education Statistics. McIntyre, E. M., Baker, C. N., & Overstreet, S. (2019). Evaluating foundational professional development training for trauma-informed approaches in schools. Psychological Services, 16(1), 95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30489111/ Metzler, M., Merrick, M. T., Klevens, J., Ports, K. A., & Ford, D. C. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences and life opportunities: Shifting the narrative. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 141-149. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-02960-003 Microsoft 365. (n.d.). BitLocker. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/ information-protection/bitlocker/bitlocker-overview Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1573-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.011 Milner, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (2021). Handbook of urban education. Routledge. Minkos, M. L., Sassu, K. A., Gregory, J. L., Patwa, S. S., Theodore, L. A., & Femc‐Bagwell, M. (2017). Culturally responsive practice and the role of school administrators. Psychology in the Schools, 54(10), 1260-1266. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1161276 Miskel, C., & Hoy, W. K. (Eds.). (2003). Studies in leading and organizing schools. IAP. 170 Moore, J. L., III, & Lewis, C. W. (2014). 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education: Educational advancement or decline? Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 191-193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.0191 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2021). Inclusive economy. https://naacp.org/issues/inclusive-economy National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Fast facts: Title I. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158 National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2018). About child trauma. https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/about-child-trauma Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press. O’Dwyer, L. M., & Bernauer, J. A. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. Sage. Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2002). The resurgence of school segregation. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 16-20. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-resurgence-of-school-segregation Overstreet, S., & Mathews, T. (2011). Challenges associated with exposure to chronic trauma: Using a public health framework to foster resilient outcomes among youth. Psychology in the Schools, 48(7), 738-754. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20584 Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543 Pendakur, V., & Furr, S. C. (2016). Critical leadership pedagogy: Engaging power, identity, and culture in leadership education for college students of color. New Directions for Higher Education, 174, 45-55. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102868 171 Pérez Huber, L., & Solorzano, D. G. (2015). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race research. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(3), 297-320. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2014.994173 Perez-Gualdron, L., Yeh, C., & Russell, L. (2016). Boys II men: A culturally responsive school counseling group for urban high school boys of color. Journal of School Counseling, 14, 1-47. http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v14n13.pdf Petrone, R., & Stanton, C. R. (2021). From producing to reducing trauma: A call for “trauma- informed” research(ers) to interrogate how schools harm students. Educational Researcher, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x211014850 Porche, M. V., Fortuna, L. R., Lin, J., & Alegria, M. (2011). Childhood trauma and psychiatric disorders as correlates of school dropout in a national sample of young adults. Child Development, 82(3), 982-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01534.x Purtle, J. (2020). Systematic review of evaluations of trauma-informed organizational interventions that include staff trainings. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 725-740. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30079827/ Qualtrics. (2020). Qualtrics security and privacy accreditations. https://www.qualtrics.com/platform/security/ Quiros, L., & Berger, R. (2015). Responding to the sociopolitical complexity of trauma: An integration of theory and practice. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 20(2), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2013.836353 172 Reardon, S. F., Kalogrides, D., & Shores, K. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1164-1221. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/700678 Reddick, R. J., Smith, S. M., & Bukoski, B. E. (2020). (Cultural) taxation without representation? How educational developers can broker discourse on Black faculty lives in the #BlackLivesMatter era. To Improve the Academy, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.103 Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2006). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900310 Robinson, D. M., Mason, E. C., McMahon, H. G., Flowers, L. R., & Harrison, A. (2019). New school counselors’ perceptions of factors influencing their roles as leaders. Professional School Counseling, 22(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2156759X19852617 Rubie-Davies, C. M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel 2016 (4th ed.). Sage. 173 San Diego Unified School District. (2021). What is the LCAP?https://sandiegounified.org/about/local_control_and_accountability_plan/what_is_ the_lcap https://sandiegounified.org/ about/Local_Control_and_Accountability_Plan/what_is_the_lcap Santiago, C. D., Raviv, T., Ros, A. M., Brewer, S. K., Distel, L. M., Torres, S. A., & Langley, A. K. (2018). Implementing the Bounce Back trauma intervention in urban elementary schools: A real-world replication trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29629784/ Santibañez, L., & Snyder, C. (2018). Teaching English learners in California: How teacher credential requirements in California address their needs. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018- 09/GDTFII_Report_Santibanez.pdf Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher development to support English language learners in the context of Common Core state standards. https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/173/TeacherPDforELL sCCSS_Santos_Darling-Hammond_Cheuk.pdf Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., Miedijensky, S., & Malkinson, N. (2022). Designing new learning environments: An innovative pedagogical perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 33(1), 61-81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353420818_Designing_new_ learning_environments_An_innovative_pedagogical_perspective Sciaraffa, M. A., Zeanah, P. D., & Zeanah, C. H. (2018). Understanding and promoting resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(3), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0869-3 174 Simpson, R. L., Lacava, P. G., & Sampson Graner, P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512040400020101 Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011 Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004 Siwatu, K. O., Chesnut, S. R., Alejandro, A. Y., & Young, H. A. (2016). Examining preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy doubts. The Teacher Educator, 51(4), 277-296. https://scholars.ttu.edu/en/publications/examining-preservice- teachers-culturally-responsive-teaching-self-6 Siwatu, K. O., Putman, S. M., Starker-Glass, T. V., & Lewis, C. W. (2017). Culturally responsive classroom management self-efficacy scale. PsycTESTS Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t67647-000 Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002002 Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911431472 Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2-8. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ634009 175 Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480- 497. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-08405-005 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s-Concept-of-Trauma-and-Guidance-for-a- Trauma-Informed-Approach/SMA14-4884 Tate, W. R., Hamilton, C., Jones, B. D., Robertson, W. B., Macrander, A., Schultz, L., & Thorne-Washington, E. (2014). Serving vulnerable children and youth in the urban context. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 3-23). Routledge. Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, A., Anderson, C. M., Navalta, C. P., & Kim, D. M. (2003). The neurobiological consequences of early stress and childhood maltreatment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(1-2), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634(03)00007-1 Thomas, M. S., Crosby, S., & Vanderhaar, J. (2019). Trauma-informed practices in schools across two decades: An interdisciplinary review of research. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 422-452. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x18821123 Trent, M., Dooley, D. G., & Dougé, J. (2019). The impact of racism on child and adolescent health. Pediatrics, 144(2). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31358665/ Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-00328-001 176 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543068002202 Umansky, I. M., Reardon, S. F., Hakuta, K., Thompson, K. D., Estrada, P., Hayes, K., Maldonado, H., Tanberg, S., & Goldenberg, C. (2015). Improving the opportunities and outcomes of California’s students learning English: Findings from school district- university collaborative partnerships (Policy Brief 15-1). Policy Analysis for California Education. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). No Child Left Behind (NCLB). https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2015). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.ed.gov/essa?src%3Drn U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Title I, Part A program. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf Utley, C. A. (2012). Measuring cultural responsiveness in the classroom component of a school- wide model of positive behavior support at the elementary level. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 7(2). https://10.1515/2161-2412.1114 Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401-408. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-06 177 Van der Kolk, B. A., Roth, S., Pelcovitz, D., Sunday, S., & Spinazzola, J. (2005). Disorders of extreme stress: The empirical foundation of a complex adaptation to trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(5), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20047 Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003 Von Dohlen, H. B., Pinter, H. H., Winter, K. K., Ward, S., & Cody, C. (2019). Trauma- informed practices in a laboratory middle school. Middle School Journal, 50(4), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2019.1650549 Wah, Y. L., & Nasri, N. B. (2019). A systematic review: The effect of culturally responsive pedagogy on student learning and achievement. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(5), 588-596. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v9-i5/5907 Warren, C. A. (2017). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487 Wiest-Stevenson, C., & Lee, C. (2016). Trauma-informed schools. Journal of Evidence- Informed Social Work, 13(5), 498-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2016.1166855 Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Young, J., & Young, J. (2021). A systematic review of culturally responsive teaching self- efficacy using confidence intervals. Multicultural Learning and Teaching. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2021-0011 178 APPENDIX A: CRTSE CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PRACTICES SELF-EFFICACY SCALE (Adapted from Siwatu’s (2007) Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale) How confident are you that you can do each of the following tasks described below? Rate how confident you are that you can achieve each of the following by indicating a probability of success from 0 (no chance) to 100 (completely certain). The scale below is for reference only: you do not need to use only the given values. You may assign ANY number between 0 and 100 as your probability. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No Very Little Little 50/50 Good Very Good Completely Chance Chance Chance Chance Chance Chance Certain I am able to: ___ 1. Adapt instruction (or counseling programs and services) to meet the needs of my students ___ 2. Obtain information about my students’ academic strengths ___ 3. Determine whether my students like to work alone (individually) or in groups with other students ___ 4. Determine whether my students feel comfortable competing with others ___ 5. Identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, and practices) is different from my students’ home culture ___ 6. Implement strategies to minimize the effect of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and the school culture ___ 7. Assess students’ learning (or attitudes, behaviors, or academic needs as a part of a counseling program) using various types of assessments. ___ 8. Obtain information about my students’ home life ___ 9. Build a sense of trust in my students ___ 10. Establish positive home-school relations ___ 11. Use a variety of teaching (or counseling) methods 179 ___ 12. Develop a community of learners when my class (or counseling sessions) consists of students from diverse backgrounds ___ 13. Use my students’ cultural backgrounds to help make learning meaningful ___ 14. Use my students’ prior knowledge to help them make sense of new information ___ 15. Identify ways how students communicate at home may differ from the school norms ___ 16. Obtain information about my students’ cultural background ___ 17. Teach students about their cultures’ contributions to science (or counsel students about their cultures’ contributions to science) ___ 18. Greet English Language Learners with a phrase using their native language ___ 19. Design a classroom (or counseling office) environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures ___ 20. Develop a personal relationship with my students ___ 21. Obtain information about my students’ academic challenges ___ 22. Praise English Language Learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language ___ 23. Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards linguistically diverse students ___ 24. Communicate with parents regarding their child’s educational progress ___ 25. Structure parent-educator conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents ___ 26. Help students to develop positive relationships with their peers ___ 27. Revise instructional (or counseling) materials to include a better representation of cultural groups ___ 28. Critically examine the curriculum (or counseling program) to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. ___ 29. Design a teaching/counseling lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics. ___ 30. Model classroom (or counseling) tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding of the tasks 180 ___ 31. Communicate with the parents of English Language Learners’ regarding their child’s achievement ___ 32. Help students feel like important members of the classroom (or counseling sessions). ___ 33. Identify ways that standardized tests (and/or needs assessments as part of a counseling program) may be biased towards culturally diverse students ___ 34. Use a learning preference inventory to gather data about how my students like to learn ___ 35. Use examples that are familiar to students from diverse cultural backgrounds ___ 36. Explain new concepts using examples that are taken from my students’ everyday lives ___ 37. Obtain information regarding my students’ academic interests ___ 38. Use the interests of my students to make learning meaningful for them ___ 39. Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups during a classroom lesson or as part of a school counseling session ___ 40. Design instruction (or counseling programs) that matches my students’ developmental needs 181 APPENDIX B: ARTIC-45 INSTRUMENT 182 183 184 APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER 185 APPENDIX D: NOTIFICATION OF RECRUITMENT FOR PARTICIPANTS: SOCIAL MEDIA RECRUITMENT LETTER TO: Title I School Teachers and School Counselors RE: Research Study 𑁋 The Relationship Between Culturally Responsive Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Practices Dear Educator, Hello, my name is Rachel Zaragoza, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education’s program in Educational Leadership with a concentration in Educational Psychology. Through USC Rossier I am guided by my dissertation chair, Dr. Marsha Boveja Riggio, on researching the relationship between Title I educators’ culturally responsive self-efficacy and their attitudes related to trauma-informed practices. I am hoping to employ your support and participation in the completion of this research. I am conducting an online survey to assess both classroom teachers and school counselors’ culturally responsive self-efficacy as well as their attitudes toward trauma-informed practices. The goal of this study is to gain insight into the relationships between the constructs of culturally responsive self-efficacy and how this may relate to both classroom teachers’ and school counselors’ attitudes about trauma-informed practices. Researchers Blitz et al. (2020) and Gherardi et al. (2020) emphasize the importance of developing culturally responsive trauma- informed approaches to improving school climate and education for students. A meta analysis of culturally responsive schools showed that culturally responsive practices improved students’ self-concept in learning (Byrd, 2016). Quiros and Berger (2015), found that shifting to a trauma- informed school culture includes establishing a culturally relevant framework which involves creating an agency uplifting environment that is emotionally and physically safe; promotes trustworthiness, choice and collaboration for all students. However, having a knowledge base and the skillset to carry out culturally responsive practices calls for an effort to prepare culturally responsive educators through strengthening their self-efficacy in their ability to execute the practice of culturally responsive pedagogy. Researchers Baker et al., (2016, 2020) discovered the degree to which a school is considered trauma-informed is dependent upon the day-to-day behavior of its educators, and attitudes are considered an important catalyst of behavior change. Findings from this study can provide evidence for improving students’ opportunities to learn, particularly for those who have been least well-served by traditional approaches to schooling. Requirements for participation are: (1) being a current teacher or school counselor in a K-12 public school, and (2) working in a Title-I school. Your assistance in completing this survey is greatly appreciated as it will help move me one step closer in fulfilling the requirements of my doctoral program. Expected time to complete the survey is approximately 20-25 minutes. 186 ALL RESPONSES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND NO RESPONSES WILL BE INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIED Simply click on the link below and you will be directed to the Consent Letter and the online survey. Your participation is strictly voluntary, and your responses will be used for research purposes only. Thank you for your cooperation in completing my research and the valuable information you are providing. Access the survey: https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80KHkfkMhllGRM2 Rachel Zaragoza University of Southern California Doctoral Student 187 APPENDIX E: SOCIAL MEDIA RECRUITMENT POST 188 APPENDIX F: LETTER OF CONSENT FOR PARTICIPANTS 189 190 APPENDIX G: DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY (D-1) What is your age? a. 20-29 b. 30-39 c. 40-49 d. 50-59 e. 60 or older (D-2) How many years have you worked in K-12 education? a. 1-2 years b. 3-4 years c. 5-9 years d. 10-15 years e. More than 15 years (D-3) How many years have you worked in a Title I school? a. 1-2 years b. 3-4 years c. 5-9 years d. 10-15 years e. More than 15 years (D-4) Throughout your career at a Title I school, what position(s) have you held? (check all that apply) Elementary Teacher Intermediate/Middle/Junior High Teacher High School Teacher Elementary School Counselor Intermediate/Middle/Junior High School Counselor High School Counselor (D-5) What is your current position(s) at your school site? (check all that apply) Elementary School Counselor Intermediate/Middle School Counselor High School Counselor Elementary Teacher Intermediate/Middle School Teacher High School Teacher (D-6) Credential/Certificate Type (check all that apply) Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Single Subject Teaching Credential Special Education Teaching Credential Pupil Personnel Services Credential Bilingual Authorization CLAD Certification BCLAD Certification 191 (D-7) What is your current gender identity? a. Male b. Female c. Transmale/Transman d. Transfemale/Transwoman e. Gender queer or non-binary f. Identity not listed (D-8) What is your racial identity and/or ethnic/cultural identity? a. African/African American/Black b. American Indian/Alaskan Native c. Asian/Asian American d. Latinx/Hispanic e. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander f. Middle Eastern, North African, Arab/Arab American g. White/European American h. Other i. Prefer not to answer (D-9a) Have you been trained in trauma-informed practices? a. Yes b. No Move on to D-9b if you marked YES for having been trained in trauma-informed practices Skip to D-10a if you marked NO for not having been trained in trauma-informed practices (D-9b) If you marked YES for having been trained in trauma-informed practices, please select all that apply. Part of training in my college degree (bachelor’s or master’s) program Part of training in my credential program Part of training for the school/district where I work Online learning module(s) (less than one day) Online Webinar(s) (two or more days) ASCA Trauma and Crisis Management Specialist Conference presentation(s) Book studies Other (please describe) (D-10a) Have you had training in culturally responsive pedagogy (also known as multicultural practices, culturally responsive teaching, and/or culturally relevant practices)? a. Yes b. No 192 Move on to D-10b if you marked YES for having been trained in culturally responsive pedagogy Skip to D-11 if you marked NO for not having been trained in culturally responsive pedagogy (D-10b) If you marked YES for having been trained in culturally responsive pedagogy, please select all that apply. Part of training in my college degree (bachelor’s or master’s) program Part of training in my credential program Part of training for the school/district where I work Online learning module(s) (less than one day) Online Webinar(s) (two or more days) ASCA / Hatching Results training on anti-racism, social justice, and equity Conference presentation(s) Book studies Other (please describe) __________________ (D-11) To what degree are trauma-informed practices being implemented in your school? a. Not at all b. To a small degree (one or more people are trained and trying to implement) c. Somewhat (most are trained and trying to implement) d. To a large degree (school-wide training and implementation) (D-12) To what degree is culturally responsive pedagogy being implemented in your school? (culturally responsive pedagogy is also known as multicultural practices, culturally responsive teaching, or culturally relevant practices) a. Not at all b. To a small degree (one or more people are trained and trying to implement) c. Somewhat (most are trained and trying to implement) d. To a large degree (school-wide training and implementation) (D-13) How supportive are your colleagues and administrators in encouraging culturally responsive practices? a. Not at all b. Small (one or more support culturally responsive practices) c. Somewhat (most support culturally responsive practices) d. Large (school-wide support) 193 APPENDIX H: PERMISSION TO USE THE CRTSE 194 APPENDIX I: PERMISSION TO USE THE ARTIC-45 195 APPENDIX J: CRTSE FACTOR LOADINGS Survey Item Factor Loading *1 Adapt instruction to meet the needs of my students. .63 2 Obtain information about my students’ academic strengths. .63 3 Determine whether my students like to work alone or in groups with other students. .60 4 Determine whether my students feel comfortable competing with others. .58 5 Identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, and practices) is different from my students’ home culture. .65 6 Implement strategies to minimize the effect of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and the school culture. .75 *7 Assess student learning using various types of assessments. .73 8 Obtain information about my students’ home life. .65 9 Build a sense of trust in my students. .63 10 Establish positive home-school relations. .64 *11 Use a variety of teaching methods. .72 *12 Develop a community of learners when my class consists of students from diverse backgrounds. .73 13 Use my students’ cultural backgrounds to help make learning meaningful. .73 14 Use my students’ prior knowledge to help them make sense of new information. .68 15 Identify ways how students communicate at home may differ from the school norms .75 16 Obtain information about my students’ cultural background. .63 *17 Teach students about their cultures’ contributions to science. .56 18 Greet English Language Learners with a phrase using their native language. .41 *19 Design a classroom environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures. .66 20 Develop a personal relationship with my students. .61 21 Obtain information about my students’ academic challenges. .68 22 Praise English Language Learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language. .39 196 Survey Item Factor Loading *23 Identify ways that standardized tests may be biased towards linguistically diverse students. .53 24 Communicate with parents regarding their child’s educational progress. .68 *25 Structure parent-teacher conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents. .69 26 Help students to develop positive relationships with their peers. .74 *27 Revise instructional materials to include a better representation of cultural groups. .70 *28 Critically examine the curriculum to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. .70 *29 Design a lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics. .47 *30 Model classroom tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding of the tasks. .67 31 Communicate with the parents of English Language Learners’ regarding their child’s achievement. .53 *32 Help students feel like important members of the classroom. .64 *33 Identify ways that standardized tests may be biased towards culturally diverse students .58 34 Use a learning preference inventory to gather data about how my students like to learn. .63 35 Use examples that are familiar to students from diverse cultural backgrounds. .74 36 Explain new concepts using examples that are taken from my students’ everyday lives. .67 37 Obtain information regarding my students’ academic interests. .74 38 Use the interests of my students to make learning meaningful for them. .76 *39 Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups. .72 *40 Design instruction that matches my students’ developmental needs. .79 Note. *Survey items adapted for this study. 197 APPENDIX K: CRTSE ITEM-SPECIFIC MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS CRTSE Items M SD Minimum Maximum (1) Adapt instruction (or counseling programs and services to meet the needs of my students 74.00 19.304 10 100 (2) Obtain information about my students’ academic strengths 75.85 20.360 15 100 (3) Determine whether my students like to work alone or in groups 77.62 19.561 7 100 (4) Determine whether my students feel comfortable competing with other students 73.41 19.413 12 100 (5) Identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms, and practices) is different from my students’ home culture 70.75 20.699 2 100 (6) Implement strategies to minimize the effects of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and school culture 69.72 20.811 0 100 (7) Assess students' learning (or attitudes, behaviors, or academic needs as a part of a counseling program) using various types of assessments 72.23 21.260 0 100 (8) Obtain information about my students’ home life 73.30 20.115 5 100 (9) Build a sense of trust in my students 78.95 20.016 4 100 (10)Establish positive home-school relations 74.92 20.128 8 100 (11) Use a variety of teaching (or counseling) methods 77.17 20.672 1 100 (12) Develop a community of learners when my class (or counseling sessions) consists of students from diverse backgrounds 75.99 19.726 0 100 (13) Use my students’ cultural background to help make learning meaningful 74.87 20.333 3 100 (14) Use my students’ prior knowledge to help them make sense of new information 75.69 19.567 0 100 (15) Identify ways how students communicate at home may differ from the school norms 72.73 19.599 4 100 (16) Obtain information about my students’ cultural background 73.82 20.384 0 100 (17) Teach students about their culture’s contributions to science (or counsel students about their cultures’ contributions to science) 67.80 23.088 0 100 198 CRTSE Items M SD Minimum Maximum (18) Greet English Language Learners with a phrase in their native language 69.58 24.810 0 100 (19) Design a classroom (or counseling office) environment using displays that reflect a variety of cultures 72.04 21.469 0 100 (20) Develop a personal relationship with my students 79.68 18.360 0 100 (21) Obtain information about my students’ academic weaknesses 7.45 18.149 17 100 (22) Phrase English Language Learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language 9.23 25.454 0 100 (23) Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards linguistically diverse students 0.42 22.060 0 100 (24) Communicate with parents regarding their child’s educational progress 7.16 20.220 4 100 (25) Structure parent-educator conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents 4.47 20.157 7 100 (26) Help students to develop positive relationships with their classmates 6.32 18.448 16 100 (27) Revise instructional (or counseling) materials to include a better representation of cultural groups 1.49 21.246 0 100 (28) Critically examine the curriculum (or counseling program) to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes 1.26 21.896 0 100 (29) Design a teaching/counseling lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics 5.14 24.770 0 100 (30) Model classroom (or school counseling) tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding of the tasks 3.38 19.334 0 100 (31) Communicate with the parents of English Language Learners regarding their child’s achievements 1.72 22.402 6 100 (32) Help students feel like important members of the classroom (or counseling sessions) 8.02 19.223 14 100 199 CRTSE Items M SD Minimum Maximum (33) Identify ways that standardized tests (or counseling assessments) may be biased towards culturally diverse students 1.52 22.087 0 100 (34) Use a learning preference inventory to gather data about how my students like to learn 2.68 21.641 5 100 (35) Use examples that are familiar to students from diverse cultural backgrounds 2.31 20.877 5 100 (36) Explain new concepts using examples that are taken from my students’ everyday lives 5.12 19.959 0 100 (37) Obtain information regarding my students’ academic interests 7.08 18.210 22 100 (38) Use the interests of my students to make learning meaningful for them 3.43 19.911 9 100 (39) Implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups during a classroom lesson or as part of a school counseling session 6.17 18.651 7 100 (40) Design instruction (or counseling programs) that matches my students’ developmental needs 6.07 18.427 0 100 200 APPENDIX L: SCATTERPLOTS SHOWING THE CRTSE STRENGTH INDEX AS A PREDICTOR OF ATTITUDES RELATED TO TRAUMA-INFORMED PRACTICES AS MEASURED BY THE ARTIC 201 APPENDIX M: MEAN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORE BY RACE/ETHNICITY, GENDER, AND TITLE I EXPERIENCE (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity Gender Title I experience M SD n Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Black/African American Male 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-9 years 409.50 422.50 454.20 71.407 58.904 58.559 12 14 5 >15 years 397.71 20.918 7 Female 1-2 years 421.50 30.406 2 3-4 years 430.33 49.277 9 5-9 years 397.00 65.169 5 10-15 years 414.00 -- 1 >15 years 457.00 61.437 5 Transmale 1-2 years 429.00 -- 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native Male 1-2 years 3-4 years 374.40 403.50 102.729 89.883 5 4 >15 years 400.00 -- 1 Female 1-2 years 390.33 71.988 3 3-4 years 471.60 93.071 5 Asian/Asian American Male 1-2 years 371.00 -- 1 3-4 years 509.33 53.929 3 5-9 years 393.00 151.321 2 Female 1-2 years 546.25 118.722 4 3-4 years 440.50 94.731 6 5-9 years 614.00 -- 1 Transmale 1-2 years 3-4 years 314.00 500.00 -- -- 1 1 5-9 years 478.50 91.217 2 >15 years 614.00 -- 1 Female 1-2 years 578.50 171.827 2 3-4 years 466.67 154.215 3 5-9 years 536.36 126.690 11 10-15 years 586.00 -- 1 >15 years 517.20 106.088 5 Transmale 1-2 years 386.00 -- 1 202 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity Gender Title I experience M SD n Subscale 3: On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs. Control) Middle Eastern/Arab American Male 5-9 years 10-15 years 371.00 329.00 -- -- 1 1 Female 3-4 years 467.75 99.131 4 5-9 years 443.00 -- 1 Transfemale 3-4 years 371.00 30.406 2 5-9 years 471.00 -- 1 White/European American Male 1-2 years 485.62 97.074 8 3-4 years 430.17 77.148 36 5-9 years 427.84 55.862 19 10-15 years 411.40 140.251 5 >15 years 475.00 116.582 4 Female 1-2 years 456.27 120.645 15 3-4 years 464.10 93.806 31 5-9 years 478.57 104.254 42 10-15 years 538.00 95.125 15 >15 years 548.27 83.906 37 Transmale 1-2 years 386.00 -- 1 Other Race/Ethnicity Male 5-9 years 571.00 -- 1 10-15 years 600.00 -- 1 Female 5-9 years 586.00 -- 1 10-15 years 578.50 10.607 2 >15 years 578.50 111.016 2 203 APPENDIX N: MEAN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORES BY GENDER, TITLE I EXPERIENCE, AND JOB POSITION (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Gender Title I experience Job position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Male 1-2 years Teacher Counselor Split Position 454.28 479.00 400.00 61.127 70.71 -- 25 2 1 3-4 years Teacher 447.77 73.986 44 Counselor 357.20 30.053 5 Split Position 438.11 65.237 9 5-9 years Teacher 435.75 87.009 24 Counselor 457.33 128.500 3 Split Position 395.00 41.569 3 10-15 years Teacher 378.50 191.626 2 Counselor 461.00 68.308 4 Split Position 386.00 -- 1 >15 years Teacher 511.40 71.535 5 Counselor 430.71 19.242 7 Split Position 343.00 -- 1 Female 1-2 years Teacher 429.25 86.746 20 Counselor 528.50 113.421 5 Split Position 393.00 9.899 2 3-4 years Teacher 451.47 81.145 40 Counselor 530.43 106.085 7 Female 3-4 years Split Position 448.18 44.423 11 5-9 years Teacher 481.77 89.852 44 Counselor 473.27 112.460 15 Split Position 457.33 65.684 3 10-15 years Teacher 517.29 81.790 14 Counselor 505.80 147.696 5 > 15 years Teacher 528.20 80.248 35 Counselor 480.71 104.15 14 204 ARTIC subscale Gender Title I experience Job Position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Transmale 1-2 years Teacher 418.00 41.199 4 Transfemale 3-4 years Teacher 436.00 70.711 2 Counselor 500.00 60.811 2 Split Position 486.00 -- 1 3-4 years Teacher 418.48 67.989 44 Counselor 440.00 81.065 5 Split Position 492.22 74.676 9 5-9 years Teacher 433.33 59.288 24 Counselor 509.33 53.929 3 Split Position 385.67 107.751 3 10-15 years Teacher 421.50 252.437 2 Counselor 453.50 120.046 4 Split Position 329.00 -- 1 >15 years Teacher 514.20 98.763 5 Counselor 387.57 32.222 7 Split Position 414.00 -- 1 >15 years Teacher 514.20 98.763 5 Counselor 387.57 32.222 7 Split Position 414.00 -- 1 Female 1-2 years Teacher 458.60 109.272 20 Counselor 568.60 118.757 5 Split Position 357.00 60.811 2 3-4 years Teacher 445.38 74.396 40 Counselor 579.71 105.038 7 Split Position 423.55 67.971 11 5-9 years Teacher 482.14 105.608 44 Counselor 521.87 109.332 15 Split Position 352.33 21.385 3 Female 10-15 years Teacher 545.79 79.974 14 Counselor 517.20 124.096 5 >15 years Teacher 547.77 84.803 35 Counselor 510.14 91.702 14 Transmale 1-2 years Teacher 378.75 47.689 4 Transfemale 3-4 years Counselor 371.00 30.406 2 205 APPENDIX O: MEAN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORE BY RACE/ETHNICITY, TITLE I EXPERIENCE, AND GRADE LEVEL (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity Title I experience Grade level M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American 1-2 years Primary Secondary 471.50 414.29 50.526 55.886 8 7 3-4 years Primary 471.50 60.104 2 Secondary 439.57 69.373 21 5-9 years Primary 485.50 40.305 2 Secondary 417.88 70.264 8 10-15 years Secondary 457.00 -- 1 >15 years Primary 429.00 -- 1 Secondary 415.55 39.500 11 American Indian/Alaskan Native 1-2 years Secondary 432.25 70.755 8 3-4 years Primary 404.67 36.226 3 Secondary 433.33 66.190 6 >15 years Secondary 400.00 -- 1 Asian/Asian American 1-2 years Primary 336.00 9.899 2 Secondary 446.50 35.800 4 3-4 years Primary 414.33 49.652 3 Secondary 464.17 106.987 6 5-9 years Primary 371.00 -- 1 Secondary 500.00 100.409 2 Hispanic/Latinx 1-2 years Primary 385.50 40.305 2 Secondary 547.67 138.601 3 3-4 years Primary 571.00 -- 1 Secondary 390.33 33.486 3 5-9 years Primary 405.00 119.716 3 Secondary 517.10 134.811 10 10-15 years Primary 614.00 -- 1 206 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity Title I experience Grade level M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Hispanic/Latinx >15 years Primary 543.00 19.799 2 Secondary 460.75 110.086 4 Middle Eastern/Arab American 1-2 years Primary Secondary 493.00 428.50 104.700 60.104 4 2 5-9 years Primary 400.00 -- 1 Secondary 400.00 -- 1 10-15 years Secondary 386.00 -- 1 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1-2 years Primary 386.00 -- 1 5-9 years Secondary 457.00 -- 1 White/European American 1-2 years Primary 543.00 60.811 2 Secondary 451.23 78.721 22 3-4 years Primary 458.67 84.847 9 Secondary 453.28 81.493 58 5-9 years Primary 496.13 80.988 15 Secondary 449.37 82.796 46 10-15 years Primary 524.30 95.743 10 Secondary 448.70 120.139 10 >15 years Primary 532.96 55.843 23 Secondary 523.06 108.279 18 Other Race/Ethnicity 5-9 years Secondary 621.50 50.205 2 10-15 years Primary 486.00 -- 1 Secondary 542.50 40.305 2 >15 years Primary 443.00 -- 1 Secondary 643.00 -- 1 207 APPENDIX P: MEAN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORE BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND JOB POSITION (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity Job position M SD n Subscale 1: Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American Teacher School Counselor Split Position 440.41 412.43 471.67 58.585 43.293 86.676 41 14 6 American Indian/Alaskan Native Teacher School Counselor 416.91 448.60 56.304 80.810 11 5 Split Position 421.50 30.406 2 Asian/Asian American Teacher 439.33 87.902 12 School Counselor 442.67 113.200 3 Split Position 419.00 41.569 3 Hispanic/Latinx Teacher 462.42 102.998 19 School Counselor 529.90 138.064 10 Middle Eastern/Arab American Teacher 485.75 108.810 4 School Counselor 421.50 44.493 4 Split Position 386.00 -- 1 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Teacher School Counselor 386.00 457.00 -- -- 1 1 White/European American Teacher 476.93 87.780 164 School Counselor 490.07 108.280 30 Split Position 422.58 43.077 19 Other Race/Ethnicity Teacher 565.60 89.537 5 School Counselor 536.00 70.711 2 208 APPENDIX Q: MEAN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORES BY TITLE I EXPERIENCE, GRADE LEVEL, AND JOB POSITION (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Title I experience Grade level Job position M SD n Subscale 5: Reactions to the Work 1-2 years Primary Teacher School Counselor 452.69 486.00 87.891 -- 13 1 Split Position 429.00 -- 1 Secondary Teacher 423.81 65.513 36 School Counselor 543.00 118.722 6 Split Position 357.00 60.811 2 3-4 years Primary Teacher 485.75 83.520 8 School Counselor 446.86 144.287 7 Split Position 396.00 44.283 7 Secondary Teacher 427.99 73.730 76 School Counselor 510.14 98.832 7 Split Position 508.77 60.176 13 5-9 years Primary Teacher 491.40 68.240 15 School Counselor 502.60 83.506 5 Split Position 414.00 141.421 2 Secondary Teacher 470.68 104.655 53 School Counselor 481.31 123.714 13 Split Position 396.25 105.806 4 10-15 years Primary Teacher 500.12 94.573 8 School Counselor 528.50 129.929 4 Secondary Teacher 537.50 105.441 8 School Counselor 457.20 107.038 5 Split Position 414.00 -- 1 >15 years Primary Teacher 535.04 71.229 24 School Counselor 490.33 21.825 3 Secondary Teacher 528.63 114.286 16 School Counselor 447.56 87.417 18 Split Position 443.00 -- 1 209 ARTIC subscale Title I experience Grade level Job position M SD n Subscale 7: System-wide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices 1-2 years Primary Teacher School Counselor 410.77 400.00 103.800 -- 13 1 Split Position 460.00 -- 1 Secondary Teacher 421.81 87.938 36 School Counselor 463.33 120.277 6 Split Position 330.00 70.711 2 Subscale 7: System-wide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices 3-4 years Primary Teacher School Counselor 440.00 417.14 74.066 92.685 8 7 Split Position 422.86 64.734 7 Secondary Teacher 416.53 108.311 76 School Counselor 480.00 121.106 7 Split Position 545.08 116.891 13 5-9 years Primary Teacher 397.80 191.277 15 School Counselor 428.00 118.828 5 Split Position 480.00 226.274 2 Secondary Teacher 470.38 120.579 53 School Counselor 447.69 140.128 13 Split Position 425.00 117.047 4 10-15 years Primary Teacher 472.50 132.638 8 School Counselor 435.00 75.498 4 Secondary Teacher 435.00 106.234 8 School Counselor 456.00 74.027 5 Split Position 320.00 -- 1 >15 years Primary Teacher 428.67 151.455 24 School Counselor 541.67 17.559 3 >15 years Secondary Teacher 410.44 154.045 16 School Counselor 412.50 89.644 18 Split Position 420.00 -- 1 210 APPENDIX R: POST HOC ANALYSIS FOR MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORES BY RACE/ETHNICITY (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 1 – Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American 437.07 59.911 61 Asian < Black AI/AN < Black NH/PI < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 426.22 60.512 18 NH/PI < AI/AN Asian/Asian American 436.50 82.322 18 AI/AN < Asian NH/PI < Asian Hispanic/Latinx 485.69 118.373 29 WH < HL ME/AA < HL Black < HL Asian < HL AI/AN < HL NH/PI < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 446.11 81.990 9 Black < ME/AA Asian < ME/AA AI/AN < ME/AA NH/PI < ME/AA Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 421.50 50.205 2 White/European American 473.93 89.252 213 ME/AA < WH Black < WH Asian < WH AI/AN < WH NH/PI < WH Other Race/Ethnicity 557.14 79.915 7 HL < OR WH < OR ME/AA < OR Black < OR Asian < OR AI/AN < OR NH/PI < OR Subscale 2 –Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Black/African American 413.59 78.362 61 Asian < Black ME/AA < Black NH/PI < Black AI/AN < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 387.28 79.772 18 211 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 2 –Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Asian/Asian American 411.17 87.161 18 ME/AA < Asian NH/PI < Asian AI/AN < Asian Hispanic/Latinx 513.28 104.615 29 WH < HL Black < HL Asian < HL ME/AA < HL NH/PI < HL AI/AN < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 406.56 89.863 9 NH/PI < ME/AA AI/AN < ME/AA Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 393.00 131.522 2 AI/AN < NI/PI White/European American 478.46 112.570 213 Black < WH Asian < WH ME/AA < WH NH/PI < WH AI/AN < WH Other Race/Ethnicity 579.43 98.669 7 HL < OR WH < OR Black < OR Asian < OR NH/PI < OR AI/AN < OR Subscale 3 – On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs Control) Black/African American 421.52 56.442 61 ME/AA < Black AI/AN < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 411.94 90.142 18 Asian/Asian American 468.94 112.642 18 Black < Asian ME/AA < Asian AI/AN < Asian Hispanic/Latinx 513.79 115.155 29 NH/PI < HL WH < HL Asian < HL Black < HL ME/AA < HL AI/AN < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 417.33 82.576 9 AI/AN < ME/AA 212 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 3 – On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy vs Control) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 500.00 41.012 2 WH < NH/PI Asian < NH/PI Black < NH/PI ME/AA < NH/PI AI/AN < NH/PI White/European American 476.67 100.802 213 Asian <WH Black <WH ME/AA <WH AI/AN <WH Other Race/Ethnicity 581.57 46.450 7 HL < OR NH/PI < OR WH < OR Asian < OR Black < OR ME/AA < OR AI/AN < OR Subscale 4 – Self-Efficacy at Work Black/African American 467.26 117.575 61 ME/AA < Black Asian < Black AI/AN < Black NH/PI < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 424.61 100.368 18 NH/PI < AI/AN Asian/Asian American 439.67 93.151 18 AI/AN < Asian NH/PI < Asian Hispanic/Latinx 505.86 126.369 29 WH < HL Black < HL ME/AA < HL Asian < HL AI/AN < HL NH/PI < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 449.11 63.895 9 Asian < ME/AA AI/AN < ME/AA NH/PI < ME/AA Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 407.50 111.016 2 White/European American 490.74 114.433 213 Black < WH ME/AA < WH Asian < WH AI/AN < WH NH/PI < WH 213 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 4 – Self-Efficacy at Work Other Race/Ethnicity 595.86 84.559 7 HL < OR WH < OR Black < OR ME/AA < OR Asian < OR AI/AN < OR NH/PI < OR Black/African American 436.08 81.706 61 AI/AN < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 408.67 66.101 18 Asian/Asian American 457.11 77.201 18 ME/AA < Asian Black < Asian AI/AN < Asian Middle Eastern/Arab American 439.67 90.722 9 Black < ME/AA AI/AN < ME/AA Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 464.50 30.406 2 Asian < NH/PI ME/AA < NH/PI Black < NH/PI AI/AN < NH/PI White/European American 474.23 95.833 213 NH/PI < WH Asian < WH ME/AA < WH Black < WH AI/AN < WH Other Race/Ethnicity 565.43 102.564 7 HL < OR WH < OR NH/PI < OR Asian < OR ME/AA < OR Black < OR AI/AN < OR Subscale 6 – Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Black/African American 431.95 110.569 61 AI/AN < Black ME/AA < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 430.00 92.100 18 ME/AA < AI/AN Asian/Asian American 447.78 118.051 18 Black < Asian AI/AN < Asian ME/AA < Asian 214 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 6 – Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Hispanic/Latinx 493.62 118.208 29 WH < HL NH/PI < HL Asian < HL Black < HL AI/AN < HL ME/AA < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 417.78 90.247 9 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 450.00 127.479 2 Asian < NH/PI Black < NH/PI AI/AN < NH/PI ME/AA < NH/PI White/European American 471.28 114.998 213 NH/PI < WH Asian < WH Black < WH AI/AN < WH ME/AA < WH Other Race/Ethnicity 563.43 98.434 7 HL < OR WH < OR NH/PI < OR Asian < OR Black < OR AI/AN < OR ME/AA < OR Subscale 7 – System-wide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Black/African American 418.62 85.437 61 ME/AA < Black OR < Black NH/PI < Black AI/AN < Black American Indian/Alaskan Native 387.78 90.265 18 Asian/Asian American 459.06 113.126 18 WH < Asian HL < Asian Black < Asian ME/AA < Asian OR < Asian NH/PI < Asian AI/AN < Asian Hispanic/Latinx 443.69 128.776 29 Black < HL ME/AA < HL OR < HL NH/PI < HL AI/AN < HL Middle Eastern/Arab American 404.44 82.327 9 OR < ME/AA NH/PI < ME/AA AI/AN < ME/AA 215 ARTIC subscale Race/Ethnicity M SD n Post hoc Subscale 7 – System-wide Support of Trauma-Informed Practices White/European American 445.92 129.983 213 HL < WH Black < WH ME/AA < WH OR < WH NH/PI < WH AI/AN < WH Other Race/Ethnicity 391.43 79.881 7 NH/PI < OR AI/AN < OR Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 390.00 70.711 2 AI/AN < NH/PI 216 APPENDIX S: POST HOC ANALYSIS FOR MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORES BY GENDER (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Gender M SD n Post hoc Subscale 1 – Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms Male 441.64 74.696 136 TF < Male TM < Male Female 480.80 93.026 215 Male < Female TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 418.00 41.199 4 Transfemale 436.00 70.711 2 TM < TF Subscale 2 –Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms Male 433.09 96.230 136 TF < Male TM < Male Female 481.93 114.678 215 Male < Female TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 396.50 47.064 4 Transfemale 400.00 41.012 2 TM < TF Subscale 3 – On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy and Control) Male 431.38 80.518 136 Female < Male TF < Male TM < Male Female 492.56 103.115 215 TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 378.75 47.689 4 TF < TM Transfemale 371.00 30.406 2 Subscale 4 – Self-Efficacy at Work Male 478.03 119.294 136 TF < Male TM < Male Female 488.32 112.583 215 Male < Female TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 367.75 13.841 4 Transfemale 407.00 9.899 2 TM < TF Subscale 5 – Reactions to the Work Male 449.68 82.702 136 TF < Male TM < Male Female 478.80 100.516 215 Male < Female TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 385.50 20.273 4 Transfemale 385.50 101.116 2 Subscale 6 – Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices Male 457.51 121.975 136 TF < Male TM < Male Female 468.46 109.325 215 Male < Female TF < Female TM < Female Transmale 360.00 56.569 4 Transfemale 440.00 22.089 2 TM < TF 217 APPENDIX T: POST HOC ANALYSIS FOR MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ARTIC SUBSCALE SCORES BY TITLE I EXPERIENCE (N = 357) ARTIC subscale Title I experience M SD n Post hoc Subscale 1 – Underlying Causes of Problem Behavior and Symptoms 1-2 years 447.47 77.532 59 3-4 years 449.19 78.029 118 1-2 < 3-4 5-9 years 463.96 93.311 92 3-4 < 5-9 1-2 < 5-9 10-15 years 490.69 105.004 26 5-9 < 10-15 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 502.13 88.182 62 10-15 < 15+ 5-9 < 15+ 3-4 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+ Subscale 2 –Responses to Problem Behavior and Symptoms 1-2 years 428.56 98.273 59 3-4 < 1-2 3-4 years 426.19 97.472 118 5-9 years 478.09 113.090 92 1-2 < 5-9 3-4 < 5-9 10-15 years 519.19 100.646 26 15+ < 10-15 5-9 < 10-15 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 513.58 108.396 62 5-9 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+ 3-4 < 15+ Subscale 3 – On-the-Job Behavior (Empathy and Control) 1-2 years 442.37 104.633 59 3-4 years 443.36 82.265 118 1-2 < 3-4 5-9 years 469.39 99.687 92 3-4 < 5-9 1-2 < 5-9 10-15 years 508.19 115.065 26 5-9 < 10-15 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 516.32 95.879 62 10-15 < 15+ 5-9 < 15+ 3-4 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+ Subscale 4 – Self-Efficacy at Work 1-2 years 447.66 105.105 59 3-4 years 467.42 117.669 118 1-2 < 3-4 5-9 years 502.37 118.643 92 15+ < 5-9 3-4 < 5-9 1-2 < 5-9 218 ARTIC subscale Title I experience M SD n Post hoc Subscale 4 – Self-Efficacy at Work 10-15 years 514.88 97.814 26 15+ < 10-15 5-9 < 10-15 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 501.82 110.319 62 3-4 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+ Subscale 5 – Reactions to the Work 1-2 years 441.17 83.894 59 3-4 years 444.90 84.224 118 1-2 < 3-4 5-9 years 472.83 101.691 92 3-4 < 5-9 1-2 < 5-9 10-15 years 504.42 103.432 26 15+ < 10-15 5-9 < 10-15 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 504.34 93.906 62 5-9 < 15+ 3-4 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+ Subscale 6 – Personal Support of Trauma-Informed Practices 1-2 years 436.69 107.164 59 3-4 years 442.39 114.845 118 1-2 < 3-4 5-9 years 489.73 123.642 92 15+ < 5-9 10-15 < 5-9 3-4 < 5-9 1-2 < 5-9 10-15 years 471.81 93.461 26 3-4 < 10-15 1-2 < 10-15 >15 years 483.42 101.345 62 10-15 < 15+ 3-4 < 15+ 1-2 < 15+
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Preparing educators to work with all learners is essential to the development of student academic success yet, historically, educators have not consistently reached students of color (SOC) at the same rate as they have reached White students. With Title I schools comprising 62% of the “low-performing” schools in California, it is important to examine how current Title I educators deal with their beliefs in their ability to provide equitable practices to students who attend Title I schools. Using quantitative research design, this study examined environmental and individual factors that influence Title I educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) and attitudes related to trauma-informed practices (TIP). Specifically, using the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) scale and the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) scale, this study explored the influence of self-efficacy beliefs in CRP on Title I educators’ attitudes related to TIP. The study also examined the influence of CRP professional training on educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP and whether belief in self-efficacy and attitudes differed by the degree of schoolwide implementation and support for CRP. Participants were 408 Title I educators who identified as a K–12 classroom teacher, a school counselor, or a split-position (teacher and counselor) educator in California. Findings showed self-efficacy beliefs in CRP to be a significant predictor of attitudes related to TIP. The number of CRP professional training sessions attended was a significant predictor of both self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP. The data showed significant main effects and differences in self-efficacy beliefs in CRP and attitudes related to TIP according to gender, years of experience in Title I education, job position, and primary or secondary grade level. These findings have practical implications for K–12 leaders, in-service educators, and preservice educator programs that are intended to improve the overall success and agency of teachers and school counselors who work in Title I schools in the United States.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?
PDF
The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?
PDF
What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?
PDF
Cultivating culturally competent educators
PDF
Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment
PDF
The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy
PDF
Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge
PDF
The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools
Pdf
Trauma and low-income elementary students of color
PDF
Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs
PDF
Preservice teacher perspectives: impact of culturally responsive pedagogy and implications of Eurocentric, whitewashed roots on United States education
PDF
Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment
PDF
Culturally relevant sex education for Black adolescents: a study of Black sexuality educators
PDF
Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools
PDF
Confidence is key: peer observations and online teacher self-efficacy in higher education
PDF
The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students
PDF
The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals
PDF
Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century
PDF
One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom
Asset Metadata
Creator
Zaragoza, Rachel Katherine
(author)
Core Title
The relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes of trauma-informed practices among K-12 educators
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2022-08
Publication Date
08/04/2022
Defense Date
05/04/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
ACEs,adverse childhood experiences,adverse childhood experiences survey,ARTIC,attitudes,attitudes related to trauma-informed care,CRTSE,culturally and linguistically diverse,culturally and linguistically diverse students,culturally and linguistically diverse students of color,culturally relevant,culturally relevant pedagogy,culturally relevant practices,culturally responsive,culturally responsive pedagogy,culturally responsive practices,culturally responsive teaching,culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy scale,degree of implementation,Ethnicity,healing centered practices,K-12 education,low-income schools,low-income students,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,School Counseling,school counselors at a Title I school,school counselors attitudes,self-efficacy,students of color,teacher attitudes,teachers at a Title I school,teaching,Title 1,Title I,Title I school counselors,Title I teachers,Title-I,trauma sensitive schools,trauma-informed practices
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Boveja Riggio, Marsha (
committee chair
), Christian, A'tasha (
committee member
), Chung, Ruth (
committee member
), Spann, Rufus (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rbbklrz@yahoo.com,rkzarago@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376113
Unique identifier
UC111376113
Legacy Identifier
etd-ZaragozaRa-11099
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Zaragoza, Rachel Katherine
Type
texts
Source
20220804-usctheses-batch-969
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
ACEs
adverse childhood experiences
adverse childhood experiences survey
ARTIC
attitudes
attitudes related to trauma-informed care
CRTSE
culturally and linguistically diverse
culturally and linguistically diverse students
culturally and linguistically diverse students of color
culturally relevant
culturally relevant pedagogy
culturally relevant practices
culturally responsive
culturally responsive pedagogy
culturally responsive practices
culturally responsive teaching
culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy scale
degree of implementation
healing centered practices
K-12 education
low-income schools
low-income students
school counselors at a Title I school
school counselors attitudes
self-efficacy
students of color
teacher attitudes
teachers at a Title I school
Title 1
Title I
Title I school counselors
Title I teachers
Title-I
trauma sensitive schools
trauma-informed practices