University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Role of District and School Leaders in Educating Traumatized Children in California
Public Schools

Michelle Therese Kerrigan

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Michelle Therese Kerrigan 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Michelle Therese Kerrigan certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Debbie Lazer
Cathy Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
Understanding and treating childhood trauma is at the forefront of educational changes.
Emotional dysregulation, behavioral and cognitive problems are some of the effects of trauma,
affecting children’s ability to access grade-level curriculum. This study explored what is
currently known about trauma, the effects of trauma on brain development, and how to help
traumatized children heal and succeed in school. Educational leaders from three Southern
California school districts were included in the research. By studying the impact of trauma on
children, educational leaders may better protect all students’ rights to a high-quality education.
Four research questions guided this study:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability
to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student
achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators
developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized
children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
The research methodology for this study was a qualitative design. Qualitative data were collected
and analyzed through interviews which included descriptions of the research study, topic, and
purpose. Interviews were conducted with participants who have been in a district or school
leadership role for at least 2 years.

v
Dedication
To my daughter, Rose Ahsthik, who was born during my doctoral studies amid an unprecedented
global pandemic. I hope this will inspire your own embrace of academic studies.

To my mother, Yvonne, who put books in my hand as she broke the cycle of poverty.

To my sisters Sandra, Alex, Brittany, and Christine, who accompanied me on this journey.

To my dearest of friends Heavenly, Rebecca, Rachel, and Ashley, without whose support,
laughter, and judgment this would not be possible.

vi
Acknowledgments
Dr. Cathy Krop, Committee Chair, for the opportunity to engage in such meaningful
research and for the compassionate leadership to make completion of this work possible. Thank
you for your feedback and invitation to challenge the status quo.
Dr. David Cash, for opening my eyes to the idea that one size does not fit all in effective
leadership and for getting me to “start with why!”
Dr. Deborah Lazer, for the mentorship and dedication to colleagues and students that
have served as a bedrock for my approach to educational administration.
Thank you for your time and support throughout the past 3 years!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
Key Terms and Definitions ................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 11
Overview of Trauma Research ......................................................................................... 11
Sources of Childhood Exposure to Trauma and Implications for Student
Outcomes .......................................................................................................................... 18
Role of Schools in Addressing Childhood Trauma .......................................................... 27
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 31
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 33
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 33
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 33
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 34
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 34
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 37
viii
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 38
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 39
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 40
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 41
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 44
Interview Participants ....................................................................................................... 45
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 1 ..................................................... 48
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 2 ..................................................... 55
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 3 ..................................................... 61
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 4 ..................................................... 72
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 77
Findings............................................................................................................................. 77
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 83
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 86
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 87
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 88
References ..................................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A: Educational Leader Interview Cover Sheet and Protocol ..................................... 107
Protocol ........................................................................................................................... 107
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 109
Appendix B: Email Request for an Interview ............................................................................. 110
Appendix C: Research Summary for Interview Participants ...................................................... 111
Appendix D: Email Thank You for an Interview ....................................................................... 112

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Districts Participating in the Study 36
Table 2: Summary of Participants 47
Table 3: Graduation Rates 62
Table 4: Key Themes 79
Table 5: Recommendations for Practice 83

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Childhood trauma is one of the most important and urgent health crises. Experiencing
chaos, neglect, violence, domestic abuse, serious illness, ignorance, racism, natural disasters,
sexual abuse, and generational trauma can result in a host of trauma-related symptoms.
Traumatic experiences affect the brains, minds, and bodies of children (van der Kolk, 2014).
What trauma means for one person is different for another; however, recent discoveries in
educational neuroscience—learning how the brain works, how it develops, and how the brain
makes sense of the world—have shed light on how children can be marred in multiple ways by
trauma (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Per Perry and Szalavitz (2017),
By conservative estimates, about 40 percent of American children will have at least one
potentially traumatizing experience by age eighteen: this includes the death of a parent or
sibling, ongoing physical abuse and/or neglect, sexual abuse, or the experience of a
serious accident, natural disaster, or domestic violence or other violent crime. (p. xxv).
Historically, childhood abuse has been accompanied by a wide range of adverse
psychiatric outcomes. Common manifestations of childhood trauma can result in comorbidity of
psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, addiction, substance use, eating disorders, and
dissociative disorders (Brady et al., 2000).
The risk of depression is increasingly linked to the number of uncontrollable stressful
events people experience during their childhood, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is
frequently accompanied by depression (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Childhood trauma can play out
in the classroom and schoolyard in a variety of ways that may not appear to be trauma related.
PTSD symptoms can be mistaken for other disorders such as attention deficit disorder,
hyperactivity, and oppositional defiant disorders (Perrin et al., 2000).
2

Understanding the cognitive, social, emotional, and physiological impacts of trauma is
essential for the development of appropriate interventions, supports and strategies in schools.
When a child’s brain is developing, trauma can result in the repeated activation of stress response
systems (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017; Weber & Reynolds, 2004). The impact of childhood trauma is
well documented (Deblinger et al., 2012). Sleep and attention problems, sensory issues, hyper
arousal, fine motor difficulties, elevated heart rate, and impulse regulation are trauma-related
symptoms which can potentially impair childhood development and student achievement.
“The prevailing view about children and trauma, that in many ways continues to exist
today, is that children are resilient” (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017, p. 37). Children are no longer
considered immune to trauma exposure and the complex effects of trauma are being explored in
contemporary research, specifically the debilitating effects on a child’s social, emotional, and
academic development. Educators are developing innovative ways to help children cope with
trauma. A variety of child-serving agencies such as child welfare, education and criminal justice
systems are incorporating a trauma-informed perspective with evidence-informed practices to
help children and adolescents who are exposed to traumatic events (Ko et al., 2008). Over the
past 10 years, trauma-informed interventions and teacher education have received more attention
and understanding and, as Perry (2004) recommended, educators can improve the lives of high-
risk students by understanding the most effective ways of lessening the impact of trauma and
capitalizing on recovery.
Research on effective treatments is at the forefront of educational policy and legislation.
Trauma-informed practices and therapeutic interventions can help all students at school socially
and academically, especially special education students diagnosed with emotional and behavioral
3

disorders. As such, school districts and school administrators play a critical role in addressing the
needs of children affected by trauma.
Background of the Problem
According to the American Psychological Association (APA, 2022), trauma is defined as
any disturbing experience that results in significant fear, helplessness, dissociation,
confusion, or other disruptive feelings intense enough to have a long-lasting negative
effect on a person’s attitudes, behavior, and other aspects of functioning. Traumatic
events include those caused by human behavior (e.g., rape, war, industrial accidents) as
well as by nature (e.g., earthquakes) and often challenge an individual’s view of the
world as a just, safe, and predictable place. (para. 1)
Traumatic experiences can impact anyone regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender,
socioeconomics, or sexual orientation. Trauma can be further defined as acute, a result of a
single event, or chronic due to repeated exposure (APA, 2022).
According to the Presidential Task Force on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in
Children and Adolescents (2008), “The field of child and adolescent PTSD and trauma is
relatively young, although the knowledge base has increased substantially over the past two
decades” (p. 1). Complex effects of trauma are being explored in contemporary research,
including potentially devastating outcomes on a child’s social, emotional, and academic
development. Empirical evidence suggests that physical, emotional, and mental symptoms in
adulthood are associated with childhood trauma (Edwards et al., 2003).
While there is increasing evidence that childhood exposure to trauma has long-term
consequences (Spataro et al., 2004), trauma has been the subject of controversy, specifically
concerning memory recall (Engelhard et al., 2019). Exposure to childhood maltreatment and
4

stressful life events have been linked to psychopathology, including anxiety, depression,
alcoholism and substance abuse (Enoch, 2011), an increased risk for chronic diseases (Dong et
al., 2004), and poor emotional and physical outcomes (Brindle et al., 2018). A growing body of
literature also predicts an increased risk for assault and rape in adulthood (Nishith et al., 2000).
The reality for some children is they are incubated in terror in their homes (Perry &
Szalavitz, 2017). Chaos, threat, and violence can impact brain development and a child’s
capacity for physical and emotional growth. When a child’s safety is in danger or a caregiver’s
well-being compromised, a host of symptoms can result in poor outcomes for a child’s mental
health and academic achievement. In order to understand how children cope with traumatic
experiences, researchers are examining the impact of early experiences on human development.
According to Danese and Lewis (2017), childhood ill-treatment also foretells greater
reactivity to subsequent psychosocial challenges. Impaired neurocognitive performance, such as
executive functioning difficulties, are not coincidental to childhood trauma (Becerra-García,
2014). “Vulnerability to stress and resilience are influenced by neurobiological mechanisms”
(Perry & Szalavitz, 2017, p. 38). Working memory and processing speed, goal setting and
problem solving, self-control and regulation, attention, organization, and planning are all
susceptible to genetics, environmental influences, and traumatic events.
Initially, a child’s stress system responds appropriately to threat and highly stressful
situations. Coping mechanisms that originally develop to mitigate abuse can become
maladaptive. A heightened awareness of threat and signs of aggression can provoke unconscious
reactions in children that can interfere with meeting academic, social, and behavioral demands in
school. A child may pay particularly close attention to the faces of people around them while
having difficulty focusing on a lesson (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017).
5

The effects of trauma on human development and children’s academic, behavioral, and
mental health can be devastating (Lippard & Nemeroff, 2020; van der Kolk, 2016). Individuals,
families, public and private schools, child welfare, juvenile justice and communities can be
impacted with significant consequences (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Advancements in
neurobiology and epigenetics have shown that trauma in childhood negatively affects a student’s
ability to succeed in school. A relatively new interdisciplinary field of study,
psychoneuroimmunology, developed in the late 1970s. Psychoneuroimmunology explores
behavioral, neural, endocrine, and immune processes. This field of research explores the impact
of early life stress on diseases with different etiologies. Childhood trauma can affect brain
development and the long-term functioning of a person’s immune system (Danese & Lewis,
2017).
A diagnosis of PTSD was included in the most recent edition of The Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2013). Historically, the DSM-IV
considered a diagnosis of PTSD to be an anxiety disorder. The DSM-5 embraced a conservative
approach, requiring strong evidence that recognized any change to diagnostic criteria has
significant consequences (Friedman, 2013). The DSM-5 also included a new chapter titled
Trauma-and-Stress-or-Related Disorders.
The expense to society from exposure to trauma in children is significant. According to
the National Child Traumatic Stress Network and Complex Trauma Task Force, “Although in
many ways the costs are inestimable, the repercussions of childhood trauma may be measured in
medical costs, mental health utilization, societal cost, and the psychological toll on its victims”
(Cook et al., 2003, p. 5). Children exposed to trauma can be diagnosed with emotional and
behavioral disorders, and multiple comorbid diagnoses, and identified for special education
6

services. Discipline referrals and restrictive placements are associated with special education
(Villarreal, 2015) and despite having no cognitive deficits, students with emotional or behavioral
disorders leave school prior to graduation at a higher rate than their peers (Kortering &
Blackorby, 1992).
Statement of the Problem
Exposure to trauma in early childhood such as witnessing domestic violence, sexual
abuse, neglect, or violence can have long-term, wide-ranging effects on student outcomes.
Traumatic events can also include natural disasters, pediatric medical procedures, or exposure to
war. Recognized and documented trauma symptoms in children, such as depression, substance
abuse, and suicidal ideation, are present in low- and high-performing schools. Historically,
children were considered to be resilient and less likely to be impacted by traumatic events (Perry
& Szalavitz, 2017). Contemporary research has established that children can be impacted by
trauma and that the negative physical and psychological outcomes can impair child development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze how district and school administrators understand
the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California.
District administrators included five special education coordinators and one transformative
social-emotional learning (SEL) coach. School administrators included two elementary
principals and one high school assistant principal.
District A participants included two special education coordinators and one elementary
principle. District B’s participants consisted of two elementary principals and one special
education coordinator, and District C’s participants included two special education coordinators
and one SEL coordinator.
7

This study reveals what district and school administrators have learned from their
experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as it relates to understanding how trauma
affects learning, the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of trauma for student health,
and improving academic outcomes. Above all, this research study highlights best practices in the
field of education, effectively implementing trauma-informed practices on school campuses. This
study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis theoretical framework as a lens to understand
district leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on their ability to meet the
needs of students impacted by trauma in their schools.
Research Questions
Four research questions guided this study:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability
to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student
achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators
developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized
children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to enhance the body of research on how district and
school educational leaders understand how trauma affects children’s ability to learn and self-
regulate. Educational leaders are responsible for school policy, interventions, and supports. Their
policies and practices can influence the outcomes of childhood trauma. The findings from this
8

study are intended to aid current research and literature by providing consideration to the high
number of children exposed to traumatic events in or outside of their homes. It also seeks to
understand the interventions or innovative practices developed by educational leaders. Further, it
attempts to understand how equipped district and school administrators are in supporting
students who have experienced trauma.
Demands placed on educators have increased as more children have been subject to
traumatizing events. In the case of COVID-19, childhood trauma has been exacerbated. The
global pandemic resulted in widespread economic upheavals, disconnect from school,
communities, and support systems, and tremendous uncertainty and fear with far-reaching
mental health and trauma-related consequences. School shootings have also become more
prevalent in the United States. In 2018, Education Week started tracking school shootings,
recording 119 school shootings to date (Maxwell et al., 2022). Most recently, on May 24, 2022,
two teachers and 19 children were killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
According to The Washington Post, more than 311,000 students have experienced gun violence
at school since Columbine (Woodrow Cox et al., 2022). The school shooting at Columbine High
School, Colorado, involved the murder of 12 students and one teacher by two Grade 12 students.
Additionally, according to The Washington Post’s findings, children of color are
disproportionately impacted by school shootings. Informed by the research questions in this
study, this study recognizes and outlines best practices for addressing appropriate interventions,
supports and strategies in schools.
Key Terms and Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:
9

• Superintendent and superintendency: the chief executive officer of the school district
(Norton et al., 1996).
• Complex trauma is the result of chronic, interpersonal traumatic events that begin in
childhood (Cook et al., 2003).
• Stress is an adaptive response mediated by individual characteristics and/or
psychological processes that is a consequence of any external action, situation, or
event that places special physical and/or psychological demands upon a person
(Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980, p. 8).
• Suicidal ideation equates to nonlethal precursor behaviors (Crosby et al., 1999).
• Depression results from feelings of sadness and/or a loss of interest in activities and
can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems, decreasing a person’s
ability to function at work and at home; symptoms present for at least 2 weeks (APA,
2013).
Organization of the Study
This study is separated into five chapters. Chapter One provided an overview of the study
and presented a reason as to why research on this topic is important and timely. Chapter One also
described the background and context from which the problem of practice results. A current
review of the literature is presented in Chapter Two, and a connection to the research questions is
provided throughout. Furthermore, Chapter Two offers an informed conclusion, specifically why
there is a need to support the study of this topic. Next, methodology is addressed in Chapter
Three, where the purpose of the study and research questions are restated. The rationale for the
type of method used, qualitative research, is examined. An analysis of the data, collected from
interviews, is communicated in Chapter Four. Finally, Chapter Five presents a discussion of the
10

findings, implications, and recommendations for future research on the study of childhood
trauma.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to analyze how district and school administrators understand
the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California. This
study reveals what district and school administrators have learned from their experiences and
their decision-making responsibilities as it relates to understanding how trauma affects learning,
the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of trauma for student health, and improving
academic outcomes.
This chapter provides a review of the existing literature for a comprehensive historical
overview of the field of trauma research, specifically as it relates to children and effects on
outcomes in school. Research on what trauma is, sources of trauma, and the impact of trauma
will be discussed. In addition, there will be a focus on the education of traumatized children. In
conclusion, the theoretical perspective of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis as a lens to view
the problem of practice will be discussed.
Overview of Trauma Research
History and Background of Trauma Research
Over the centuries, trauma research has been inextricably linked to combat. Ancient
medical writings, dated around 1900 BC, detailed traumatic stress symptoms (Figley et al.,
2017). Trauma from exposure to warfare was documented throughout literature as a precipitating
cause of disease and increased mortality (Pizarro et al., 2006). According to Crocq and Crocq
(2000), “mankind’s earliest literature tells us that a significant proportion of military casualties
are psychological and that witnessing death can leave chronic psychological symptoms” (p. 47).
Terminology for trauma changed in the wake of the American Civil War. An
unprecedented magnitude of casualties and medical problems were well documented throughout
12

the American Civil War, 1861–1865 (Faust, 2009). Nostalgia was originally a term assigned to
soldiers who experienced intense and potentially lethal forms of melancholy (Clarke, 2007).
Another diagnostic label introduced during the Civil War was soldier’s heart syndrome,
describing atypical chest pain, breathlessness, and other stress-induced symptoms (Kuijpers,
2020). The magnitude and horrors of the American Civil War brought trauma to the forefront of
public knowledge.
Traumatic war exposure was linked to significant mental health consequences with
substantial postwar psychiatric problems: gastrointestinal disorders, hypertension, and
cardiovascular disease (Pizarro et al., 2006). In the late 19th century, scientific interest and the
mainstream medical systematic examination of mental health problems began (van der Kolk,
2014). In 1890, the origins of hysteria and traumatic memory were researched and well
documented in France by Jean-Martin Charcot and Pierre Janet. Both scientists were innovators
in the fields of psychiatry and neurology and specifically interested in understanding the origins
of hysteria. Hysteria—psychological and physical ailments of the body by a distraught mind—
was a pervasive and mysterious condition (Freud & Breuer, 1895/2004). Initially, the
classification was invented to address neurological symptoms such as blindness, seizures, and
paralysis in patients that were not due to disease (Didi-Huberman, 2003).
Hysteria was a clinical condition that presented diverse symptoms without means of a
simple medical explanation. In 1889 Jean-Martin Charcot stated of hysteria that “conceptually,
the disorder lies at the center of the difficult interchange between the worlds of psyche and soma
and has rested for centuries at the heart of the medical effort to understand the duality of mind
and body” (Micale, 1989, p. 223). Charcot studied the physiological and neurological
relationship of hysteria in both male and female patients. His primary focus was the meticulous
13

documentation of physical symptoms presented by patients. In attempting to understand hysteria,
Charcot’s groundbreaking research acknowledged trauma as its genesis (van der Kolk, 2014).
Pierre Janet worked closely with Charcot to develop a research laboratory to study
hysteria. Janet’s clinical approach differed significantly from Charcot’s. Janet engaged in lengthy
exchanges and discussions to understand what was going on in his patients’ minds as a result of
the trauma they endured (van der Kolk, 2014). The transition from evaluating symptoms to
understanding the origins of trauma presented a radical shift from previous medical practices.
Over the years, as medical terminology changed, the physiological and emotional
suffering of individuals exposed to traumatic experiences, especially during warfare, continued
to be investigated and documented. Clinical and empirical literature has provided irrefutable
proof that military trauma can result in emotional and physical burdens for both combatants and
civilians in terms of suffering (Weathers et al., 1995). Sigmund Freud’s conversations with
Charcot and Janet and his research into traumatic memory loss originally pertained to sexual
trauma; however, he also studied the effects of trauma experienced by combat veterans during
World War I.
At the end of World War I, the Austrian War Ministry held an official inquiry into the
treatment of veterans suffering from war neuroses and Freud was asked to provide expert
testimony (Freud & Breuer, 2004). Six months after the dawn of World War I, “shell shock” was
first introduced in The Lancet in February 1915. The article documented symptoms presented by
three soldiers in close vicinity to exploding shells. Memory, visual field, sleep, smell, and taste
were all impacted. Initially, shell shock was considered a physical injury, a result of the brain
being concussed by proximity to the blast. This early medical opinion warranted treatment, a
distinguished discharge, and a pension. By 1916, soldiers who presented with a similar pathology
14

but were discovered to have been out of range for a physical concussion were instead diagnosed
with a psychiatric condition called “neurasthenia.” Neurasthenia, a nervous breakdown, also
resulted in military discharge; however, without treatment or a pension (Crocq & Crocq, 2000).
As World War I evolved, shell shock negatively impacted the efficiency of the armed
forces. General Routine Order Number 2384 was issued in 1917 by the British General Staff,
which declared, “in no circumstances whatever will the expression ‘shell shock’ be used verbally
or be recorded in any regimental or other casualty report, or any hospital or other medical
document” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 187). Germany, judging it an unfortunate character flaw,
employed a punitive response that afforded patients painful electroshock treatment (Jones &
Wessely, 2005; van der Kolk, 2014). The Southborough Report, delivered by the British
government in 1922, attempted to eliminate shell shock as a diagnosis, declining financial
compensation. The government’s sanctioned assessment was “well-trained troops, properly led,
would not suffer from shell shock and that the servicemen who had succumbed to the disorder
were undisciplined and unwilling soldiers” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 187).
Recognition of trauma was a political storm for the central powers engaged in combat
during World War I. Denial of consequences related to warfare were necessitated by the scope
and duration of the conflict. Military psychiatry was burdened with the charge of rehabilitating
soldiers in order to have them reengage and endure the horrific toll of warfare (Dean, 1997;
Jones & Wessely, 2005). Repudiation and denial of traumatic costs have continued to play out in
modern conflicts, including in the aftermath of World War II and the Vietnam War.
One of the most traumatic experiences in the 20th century was the scale and nature of the
Holocaust. According to Crocq and Crocq (2000),
15

The dreadful invention of WWII was the concept ‘total war,’ with the systematic
targeting of civilian populations, as exemplified by the millions of deaths caused by the
Holocaust, the air raids on cities to break the morale of civilian populations, and the
atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (p. 51)
Historically, veterans’ medical complaints were compartmentalized without acknowledgement or
understanding of psychological scars. Stomachaches, chest pain, and sleep disorders received
specialized attention without a psychiatric component. Prior to the Vietnam War, the Veterans
Administration library had no books on war trauma (van der Kolk, 2014). It was not until after
the Vietnam War that research studies specifically targeted combat veterans, and PTSD became
an officially recognized trauma diagnosis. Symptoms of combat neuroses were also studied in
combat veterans of the Persian Gulf War.
Originally published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association, the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual (DSM) defines and classifies mental disorders. Post-traumatic stress
disorder, introduced into the DSM diagnostic system in 1980, was a syndrome identified with
Vietnam veterans (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Veterans struggled with a myriad of symptoms,
such as sleep difficulties, jumpiness, anxiety, and flashbacks—memories or incidents that took
place during the war. In order to include new research and ideas, the DSM is updated and revised
approximately every decade. While guided by objective principles, it is very susceptible to
political processes (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Prior to 1973, homosexuality was recognized as a
mental health psychiatric disorder (Drescher & Merlino, 2007). Furthermore, to date,
developmental trauma disorder for children is currently not recognized (van der Kolk, 2014).
Combat neuroses have been prevalent and documented from the American Civil War
through WWI, WWII and the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. Trauma
16

research has shifted over the centuries from a military lens to include studies designed to identify
and understand the lifelong impact of trauma on survivors, especially intergenerational trauma
and its effects (Coleman, 2016; Moskowitz et al., 2018). The dehumanization, prolonged
suffering, and loss experienced by Jewish survivors during the Holocaust continue to be
investigated in order to understand the role and impact of trauma on survivors and their children.
The research into the origins of trauma is no longer isolated to the detrimental effects of combat
exposure.
History and Background of Trauma Research As It Relates to Children
The history and background of trauma research as it relates to children provide a lens into
contemporary research. The field of child and adolescent trauma and PTSD is relatively new,
although research has markedly increased over the past 4 decades (Presidential Task Force on
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in Children and Adolescents, 2008). Historically,
children were considered resilient, and, as a result, there was little research or writing about
trauma and children prior to 1980 (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017; van der Kolk, 2014).
Contemporary trauma research has established that children can be impacted by trauma
(Deblinger et al., 2012). In the 20th and 21st centuries, allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by
the Catholic Church brought to the forefront the controversial nature of trauma research. Distinct
yet related cases have involved allegations, investigations, and decades of cover-ups. Sexual
abuse is one of many sources of childhood trauma.
According to the United Nations, corporal punishment is interpreted as “any punishment
in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort,
however light” (U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against
Children, n.d., para. 1). Historically, physical punishment in schools was permissible as a fitting
17

tool for behavior compliance. It was not until 1990 that research began to illustrate
unequivocally an association between corporal punishment, higher levels of aggression toward
family members and spouses, and obstructive developmental outcomes (Larzelere, 1986; U.N.
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, n.d.). Due to
expanding research, there has been a shift in international perspectives concerning corporal
punishment. In 1997, one of the largest research studies on corporal punishment provided
evidence that physical punishment of children between the ages of 6 and 9 predicted higher
levels of antisocial behaviors (Straus et al., 1997). While controlling for variables such as
poverty, sex and race, subsequent studies produced kindred results (Durrant & Ensom, 2012;
Grogan-Kaylor, 2005). Educators, medical professionals, and parents are at the forefront of
innovative and effective disciplinary changes due to contemporary research on childhood trauma.
The Waco tragedy in 1993 involved the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound.
Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to arrest David Koresh for
stockpiling weapons and explosives. Twenty-one children, exchanged for milk, escaped during
the siege, and 25 children died in the fire on the last day. Dr. Bruce D. Perry, an expert on
traumatized children, the chief of psychiatry at Texas Children’s Hospital and vice chairman for
research of the department of psychiatry at the Baylor College of Medicine, worked over 2
months with the surviving children, aged 4 to 11. Dr. Perry’s research in neuroscience and
pioneering work with traumatized children has shed light on the implications for childhood
trauma, and, as the author of multiple novels and senior fellow of The Child Trauma Academy,
he has been at the forefront of trauma research specific to children. According to the London
Family Court Clinic (2005), Dr. Perry “is an internationally recognized authority on child trauma
and the effects of child maltreatment” (p. 1). Dr. Perry’s trauma research has been instrumental
18

in examining the effects of trauma on a child’s developing brain. His pioneering research has
shifted the narrative to understanding how trauma can affect a child’s mind and, most
importantly, how traumatized children can recover.
For over 3 decades, Dr. Bessel A. van der Kolk, MD, has been conducting research into
the neurobiology of childhood trauma. For over 3 decades, Dr. van der Kolk has also been
conducting groundbreaking research into the neurobiology of childhood trauma. His work, along
with Dr. Perry and global researchers, has shifted the narrative from treating diagnoses such as
oppositional defiant disorder, and disciplining behaviors, to understanding the role of trauma in
development and treating the whole child.
Sources of Childhood Exposure to Trauma and Implications for Student Outcomes
An overview of sources of childhood exposure to trauma provides research findings on
adverse childhood experiences necessary for understanding the implications for student
outcomes. What follows is a brief review of abuse and neglect as a source of trauma and the
effects of trauma on children and learning. Early childhood exposure and child development,
PTSD, brain development, and the global COVID-19 pandemic are all factors that can influence
student outcomes.
Abuse and Neglect as a Source of Childhood Trauma
Annually, over 3 million children are reported to child welfare authorities as suspected
victims of abuse and/or neglect, and over one million of these reports are substantiated (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2003). The majority of trauma incidents
begin in the home, and the vast majority of perpetrators are parents. Childhood trauma is a global
issue with significant psychological and physical consequences (Ertan et al., 2020). Research
studies have investigated the link between childhood emotional abuse and neglect and
19

psychological and physical pain symptoms. While controlling for physical and sexual abuse,
emotional abuse and neglect correlated with physical symptoms, such as migraines and
abdominal pain, and psychological symptoms, such as depression and anxiety (Spertus et al.,
2003). Adult survivors of childhood emotional trauma and neglect can experience pervasive
symptomatology, physically and emotionally, and are vulnerable to trauma exposure later in life
(Cloitre et al., 1997).
Witnessing domestic abuse is a source of childhood trauma that can have long-term
adverse consequences for children. Research on children exposed to domestic violence has been
undertaken in order to define boundaries of domestic violence as childhood neglect (Kantor &
Little, 2003). Since 1920, beating one’s wife in the United States has been illegal; however, it
was not until 50 years later that states began to define domestic abuse and legislated criminal
penalties. Whether or not this legislation is of benefit to children or if it, in fact, penalizes a
battered spouse is yet to be determined (Edleson et al., 2006; Kantor & Little, 2003). What has
been determined is exposure to domestic violence can have deleterious repercussions for children
(Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998).
Child Development and Early Childhood Exposure to Trauma
In 2015, child protective agencies received approximately four million referrals for
alleged mistreatment (HHS, 2017). According to the World Health Organization’s (2002) child
abuse and neglect data, rates of abuse and neglect are highest among infants and children from
birth to age 4. They also have the highest rates of victimization. Reported estimates are alarming;
however, estimates can vary substantially, and the actual rate of child abuse and neglect is
considered to be substantially greater than what is officially documented (Edleson, 1999;
Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Osofsky, 2003; Putnam, 2006).
20

Newborns, infants, and toddlers are acutely vulnerable to trauma symptomology given
the nature of their complete dependence on caregivers, emergent coping skills, and accelerated
developmental period (De Young et al., 2011). Young children depend on their caregivers for
both physical and emotional protection. Fortunately, there has been a growing recognition within
the research community of the gravity of childhood trauma and the need for early intervention.
Young children have rapidly developing brains, and as such, they are very vulnerable to
traumatic events (De Young et al., 2011). According to the National Child Traumatic Stress
Network, the impact of trauma on brain development has been associated with a reduced brain
cortex. The developing brain is responsible for learning, implicit and explicit memory,
consciousness and attention, problem solving, executive functioning, emotion, language, and
social cognition (Baars & Gage, 2010). Complex brain functions are at risk when subjected to
trauma. Neurodevelopment and psychosocial development are two processes affected by abuse
and neglect (Putnam, 2006).
Child development requires the acquisition of developmental skills, and a regression in
functioning has been demonstrated when experiences involve abuse and/or neglect (Putnam,
2006). A growing body of research has investigated how adverse childhood experiences
refashion child development. Young children are at a high risk for debilitating effects on their
social, emotional, and academic development. Cognitive, psychological, somatic, and behavioral
problems are clinical outcomes correlated with exposure to trauma at a young age (Streeck-
Fischer & van der Kolk, 2000). Traumatized children routinely meet criteria for multiple clinical
diagnoses.
Chronic outcomes of early abuse, neglect, and instability include detrimental lifelong
medical problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer (Putnam, 2006). Substance abuse,
21

self-harm, clinical depression, mental illness, and suicide are also potential pervasive
psychological deficits. Children exposed to interpersonal violence have an increased risk for
many forms of psychopathology, including an increased risk for perpetuating violence as an
adult (Ingram et al., 2020). According to van der Kolk (2014), early childhood exposure to
trauma can affect injuriously brain and nervous system development, negatively affecting
cognitive development and resulting in lifelong consequences.
Trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Children
Children and adolescents can be exposed to different types of trauma. Approximately
16% of children exposed to trauma will develop PTSD (Kolaitis, 2017). PTSD can be a
debilitating consequence of childhood abuse or neglect. PTSD is a complex and chronic disorder
that, in addition to causing considerable suffering, can hamper educational and social functioning
(Trickey et al., 2012).
Research has detailed how abuse affects development. A major source of chronic trauma
for large numbers of children in the United States is child sexual abuse, including incest and
other familial sexual abuse (Putnam & Trickett, 1993). Frank Putnam and Penelope Trickett,
colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health, conducted the first longitudinal study of the
impact of sexual abuse in 1986. According to van der Kolk (2014),
The results were unambiguous: compared with girls of the same age, race and social
circumstances, sexually abused girls suffer from a large range of profoundly negative
effects, including cognitive deficits, depression, dissociative symptoms, troubled sexual
development, high rates of obesity, and self-mutilation. (p. 164)
Trying to explain the behavior of children with trauma from sexual abuse, rather than targeting
and treating PTSD, ignores underlying causes.
22

Children can develop PTSD from a single traumatic event or from exposure to chronic
trauma. The symptoms of PTSD in children are similar to the symptoms of PTSD presented by
adults. Unlike adults, children rarely talk about abuse or neglect, even when directly asked (van
der Kolk, 2014). As a result, schools, police stations, clinics and hospitals can respond only to
behaviors such as shutting down, behaving suspiciously, or acting aggressively. Sexually abused
and physically abused children have a tendency to exhibit more avoidant and dissociative
symptoms (Deblinger et al., 1989).
Diagnostic labels such as “intermittent explosive disorder,” “oppositional defiant
disorder,” “depression,” “borderline personality disorder,” and “bipolar disorder” are just some
of the psychiatric disorders used by the DSM-5 to explain behavior of children and adolescents
with PTSD. Additionally, over the past decade, new diagnostic labels such as “dysregulated
social engagement disorder” and “disruptive impulse control disorder” have been added to the
over 300 disorders detailed in the DSM-5.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), the number of students
receiving special education services was 14% of public school students under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Traumatized children exhibiting pervasive biological and
emotional dysregulation and problems with identity, sleep, attention, and attachment have issues
that transcend and include almost all diagnostic categories (van der Kolk, 2014). More research
examining the prevalence of PTSD among children with severe emotional and behavioral
disorders is needed (Mueser & Taub, 2008). According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s
Office, Overview of Special Education report in 2019, there has been an increase in the number
of students receiving special education services:
23

About one in eight California students receives special education services. … Compared
to other California students, students with disabilities are disproportionately low-income.
They are also disproportionately African American, with African American students
representing 6 percent of the overall student population but 9 percent of students with
disabilities. (p. 1)
Furthermore, the stigmatization of clinical diagnoses can further separate a maltreated child from
the nature of the trauma, developmental concerns, and empirically support treatment strategies.
In February 2009, a new diagnosis of developmental trauma disorder was submitted to the
American Psychiatric Association for inclusion in the DSM-5. The proposal was drafted based on
research by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network involving 130 relevant studies
reporting on over 100,000 children and adolescents globally. The cover letter included the
following:
Children who develop in the context of ongoing danger, maltreatment and disrupting
caregiving systems are being ill served by the current diagnostic systems that lead to an
emphasis on behavioral control with no recognition of interpersonal trauma. Studies on
the sequelae of childhood trauma in the context of caregiver abuse or neglect consistently
demonstrate chronic and severe problems with emotion regulation, impulse control,
attention and cognition, dissociation, interpersonal relationships, and self and relational
schemas. In absence of a sensitive trauma-specific diagnosis, such children are currently
diagnosed with an average of 3–8 co-morbid disorders. The continued practice of
applying multiple distinct co-morbid diagnoses to traumatized children has grave
consequences: it defies parsimony, obscures etiological clarity, and runs the danger of
relegating treatment and intervention to a small aspects of the child’s psychopathology
24

rather than promoting a comprehensive treatment approach. (van der Kolk et al., 2009, p.
2)
Despite research trials and supportive data, the DSM committee rejected developmental trauma
disorder, and, to date, there are opposing views as to whether or not it will be re-considered.
Effects of Childhood Trauma on Brain Development
The brain’s response to trauma has been continually researched, and since the early
1990s, the field of neuroscience and neurodevelopment has been revolutionized with brain
imaging techniques. A wealth of experiments has detailed how the development of a child’s
brain can be negatively impacted by a traumatic event or enduring complex trauma. Childhood
trauma affects cognitive, emotional, social, physical, and behavioral functioning (Perry et al.,
1995).
Trauma can result in cognitive impairment and emotional dysregulation that can lead to a
wide range of difficulties for children, including trouble with attention and focus, learning
disabilities, sleep disorders, poor self-esteem, and impaired social skills (Nemeroff, 2016). The
field of neuroscience has provided countless studies of brain development with brain imagining
and mathematical interpretations. Brain imaging studies of maltreated children and adolescents
reveal distinct changes in both the brain’s structure and functioning (Delima & Vimpani, 2011).
Exposure to trauma in childhood can result in short-term and long-lasting changes to the brain.
Children and adolescents respond to trauma with adaptive mental and physical responses
such as hyperarousal or dissociation. A child’s developing brain processes and organizes
information in a use-dependent design and, as such, when they have more states of hyperarousal
or dissociation, it is reasonable for them to have neuropsychiatric symptoms after trauma (Perry
25

et al., 1995; van der Kolk, 2014). Neuropsychiatric disorders can include attention deficit
disorders, mood disorders, and cognitive deficit disorders.
There is an abundance of research evidence from animal models and human studies
demonstrating traumatic experiences early in life can permanently change the development of
brain circuits involved in processing information and regulating stress responses (Lupien et al.,
2009). Given the developing brain is sensitive to stress early in life, the consequences for brain
development are far-reaching. Cognitive function in healthy adults is dependent on healthy
attachment as children with a secure base. Risk factors for depression and PTSD increase with
childhood trauma, and both can impair cognitive function (Majer et al., 2010).
COVID-19 and Childhood Trauma
Social distancing, quarantining, school closures, job insecurity, unemployment, financial
stressors, and widespread panic and fear are just a few of the implications of the recent global
pandemic. In the case of COVID-19, the concern was the rates of childhood trauma would
increase, and research findings have demonstrated an increase in child maltreatment during the
pandemic (Patrick et al., 2020). Disconnect from communities and support systems has far-
reaching mental health and trauma-related consequences for children. The pandemic also had a
disproportionate impact on communities of color and the poor (Fortuna et al., 2020). Inequities
magnified with the silent pandemic of child abuse and neglect disproportionately impacting the
disenfranchised.
While it is common sense that the challenges associated with social distancing and
isolation, psychosocially and socioeconomically, increase family stress and decrease interactions
with mandated reporters, research confirmed that the challenges increased child maltreatment
(Sidpra et al., 2021). Scientific research was limited given the pandemic impacted institutions of
26

higher education; however, some studies specific to child maltreatment were investigated.
Patrick et al. (2020) conducted a study involving children admitted to pediatric emergency care.
The research study demonstrated a significant increase in emotional and psychological abuse and
non-medical neglect. Furthermore, the analysis highlighted an increase in child abuse reporting
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sidpra et al. (2021) conducted research at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, investigating abusive head trauma (AHT) during the
pandemic. Their research methods compared incidents of suspected AHT during the period when
the United Kingdom enforced isolation to the previous 3 years. There was a 1493% increase in
cases of AHT reflected at Great Ormond Street Hospital. While an alarming increase presented
in the findings, the percentage is most likely underrepresented given families’ avoidance of
hospitals during the pandemic (Sidpra et al., 2021). For example, two parents in the study
articulated fears of contracting the virus as a reason for not seeking medical help sooner.
According to Sidpra et al. (2021), the ‘silent pandemic’ is child maltreatment.
According to Bryant et al. (2020), adverse childhood experiences have the potential to
worsen during the pandemic, and low-income communities and communities of color are at
greater risk. The adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) study was a landmark investigation in
1990 between the CDC and Kaiser Permanente. The study involved “questions covering
carefully designed categories of ACEs including physical and sexual abuse, physical and
emotional neglect, and family dysfunction, such as having had parents who were divorced,
mentally ill, addicted or in prison” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 146). While for some children, the
pandemic will consist of positive memories at home, for others, the experience will potentially
increase their risk of ACEs (Bryant et al., 2020). This has far-reaching implications given the
27

ACE study discovered a relationship between the exposure of abuse or dysfunction in the home
with multiple risk factors for several leading causes of death.
An interdisciplinary overview of sources of childhood exposure to trauma included early
exposure and child development, PTSD, brain development, and the global pandemic of
COVID-19. All the sources presented influence student outcomes in schools. These findings
have significant implications for schools. In particular, the role of trauma-informed practices in
schools as a critical component of meeting the needs of all students, especially marginalized
students.
Role of Schools in Addressing Childhood Trauma
School-Related Interventions
The impact of trauma on children can have far-reaching and lifelong implications within
the academic arena and beyond. Traumatized children who display externalizing behaviors, such
as aggression and hyperactivity, are more likely to receive punishment within the school setting
(Fondren et al., 2020). Further, childhood maltreatment has been associated with more behavior
referrals and exclusionary discipline measures such as suspensions (Eckenrode et al., 1993;
Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). Educators’ perception and response to
maladaptive behaviors can increase a child’s risk of becoming associated with the juvenile
justice system and can be the beginning of the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ (Kupchik, 2014).
Exposure to trauma can impair a student’s academic and social functioning (Perfect et al.,
2016). In order to meet the needs of students and support educational achievement, educators and
schools have investigated and instituted trauma-informed interventions. Adopting a trauma-
informed intervention, such as sensory-based art therapy, does not require strict adherence to any
particular idea, principle, or checklist. Trauma-informed interventions are necessary to address
28

broken and unjust systems that can further alienate and marginalize abused students. As such,
interventions can target individual students and families in order to provide equitable support;
however, a trauma-informed approach, in essence, does not constitute stand-alone interventions
(Maynard et al., 2019).
Contemporary research papers have detailed a tiered model with trauma-informed
intervention and prevention programs (Fondren et al., 2020). The classification of tiers includes
recommendations for services based on the administrative level and student level (Walkley &
Cox, 2013; Wiest-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). Chafouleas et al. (2016) cataloged three tiers of
support and intervention as follows: Tier 1 includes prevention-based services for all students,
regardless of trauma exposure. Services include programs to teach problem solving and coping
skills. An example would be implementation of social-emotional curriculum in whole-class
instruction. Tier 2, designed for at-risk students with interventions and strategies such as small
group counseling and social skills groups, specifically targets cognitive behavioral skills. For
students severely impacted by trauma, Tier 3 interventions provide individualized support and
services, such as community-based services like wraparound and one-on-one therapy.
Significantly, the tiers are designed to also provide lower-tier services to students in the higher
tiers. This means students in Tier 3 are also receiving Tier 2 and Tier 1 supports.
Early intervention for children is critical in order to ameliorate the effects of trauma.
Traumatized children need support to achieve educationally in a school setting. Preschool
children experience higher rates of trauma, yet there is a scarcity of information related to
trauma-informed preschool models (Stegelin et al., 2020). Furthermore, recent data shows that
suspensions and expulsions consistently occur in preschools (HHS, 2022).
29

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), created in 2000 by an act of
Congress, was the first “comprehensive organization dedicated to the research and treatment of
traumatized children” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 157). The NCTSN develops and distributes
trauma-informed interventions and resources, provides free training programs and education,
engages in research, and informs public policy. Trauma-informed services include education,
juvenile justice, residential facilities, child protective services, mental health programs, and
programs for military families. For example, the NCTSN developed an online learning center
that offers the Child Trauma Toolkit for Educators.
While there is widespread support for trauma-informed approaches in schools, it is
imperative that the effects of programs are researched (Maynard et al., 2019). Dr. Bruce Perry,
psychiatrist and senior fellow of The Child Trauma Academy, developed the neurosequential
model of education (NME). NME is not a specific intervention; it is an approach to educate
school staff on child development and functioning with the integration of neurosequential
development and traumatology. When implemented in a systematic fashion, many positive
outcomes were reported, such as a significant reduction in suspensions (Perry & Szalavitz,
2017). NME can be an effective resource for educators. According to Perry and Szalavitz (2017),
One example comes from an inner-city school in the Midwest. This school serves a high
poverty population, and most of the children who attend have significant academic and
behavioral struggles. Before instituting NME, 498 students per year had been sent to a
“punishment” classroom—one year later, after NME was implemented, this number was
cut by more than half, to 161. (p. 290)
Adoption of trauma-informed practices such as NME is taking place across the country
and globe because of data supporting the efficacy. Educators can enroll in online classes for an
30

introductory series, an in-depth assessment of NME in the classroom, and an advanced training
series in order to become qualified trainers to bring the concepts to schools and/or districts.
Challenges and Opportunities for Educating Children With Trauma
Even committed and experienced teachers can feel ineffective when traumatized students
cannot learn in a school setting. A challenge of educating traumatized children is changing
educators’ perspectives. Educators need support to prioritize their student’s emotional and
academic needs by explicitly teaching communication, self-regulation, and self-awareness.
Common core state standards, curriculum and instruction, and assessments are only a part of the
puzzle.
To meet the complex needs of traumatized children, educators and school-based
practitioners also require research-based interventions. Vicarious trauma, also known as
secondary traumatic stress, is a likely possibility for educators. Burnout, high turnover, and
organizational culture can be attributed to the challenge of educating vulnerable students.
Educators are susceptible to compassion fatigue and stress, and they, in turn, need help and
support (Figley, 1995).
Educating traumatized children presents many opportunities. Trauma-informed
educational practices have historically focused on repairing disrupted attachment and addressing
deficits. Brunzell et al. (2015) proposed a strengths-based approach with spheres of learning,
specifically increasing psychological resources. Positive psychology is making a significant
contribution to educational research while addressing the complex needs of maltreated children.
Research on positive psychology interventions in the school context is scarce (Tejada-Gallardo et
al., 2020). Countless opportunities are available to improve student outcomes for traumatized
children.
31

Trauma is an urgent public health issue with momentous costs to human lives, medical
and mental health care, criminal justice, and special education programs. Dr. van der Kolk
emphasizes, “the greatest hope for traumatized, abused and neglected children is to receive a
good education in schools where they are seen and known, where they learn to regulate
themselves, and where they can develop a sense of agency” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 353).
Educators can implement, on a daily basis, practical trauma-informed practices that can change
the culture of a school community and improve student outcomes.
According to a 2021 report by the U.S. Department of Education, there are seven distinct
challenges in educating maltreated children: rising mental health needs and disparities among
children and student groups, perceived stigma as a barrier to access, ineffective implementation
of practices, fragmented delivery systems, policy and funding gaps, gaps in professional
development and support, and lack of access to usable data to guide implementation decisions.
The report details key challenges and presents corresponding recommendations. The report is
timely given that challenges have been intensified due to COVID-19. Furthermore, much of the
research is on direct service, the role of the educator or school. Educators providing direct
service to children, such as teachers and counselors, often work in isolation from each other. The
U.S. Department of Education’s report recommends transitioning from the siloed approach
historically implemented in schools and districts to a comprehensive approach that integrates
education and mental health systems.
Theoretical Framework
This research study draws on Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis as a theoretical
framework for understanding educator knowledge about the impact of trauma on student
outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California. The framework served as a lens to
32

understand district and school leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
their ability to meet the needs of students impacted by trauma in their schools. Motivation is the
drive that engages individuals in a task and pursuit of the desired outcome (Mayer, 2011). An
analysis of district and school administrator motivation to learn from experiences and their
decision-making responsibilities as it relates to understanding how trauma affects learning was
necessary to understanding how educational leaders can improve student achievement. In terms
of organizational influences, district and school administrators, responsible for school policy,
interventions and supports, implement policies and practices that can influence the outcomes of
childhood trauma.

33

Chapter Three: Methodology
An overview of the research study, including a review of the literature, was provided in
Chapters One and Two. The purpose and design of the study, selection of the population,
research methodology (instruments and protocols), data analysis, validity, reliability, and ethical
considerations are outlined within this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
Exposure to trauma in early childhood, such as witnessing domestic violence, sexual
abuse, neglect, or violence can have long-term, wide-ranging effects on student outcomes.
Traumatic events can also include natural disasters, pediatric medical procedures, or exposure to
war. Recognized and documented trauma symptoms in children, such as depression, substance
abuse, and suicidal ideation, are present in low- and high-performing schools. Historically,
children were considered to be resilient and less likely to be impacted by traumatic events (Perry
& Szalavitz, 2017). Contemporary research has established that children can be impacted by
trauma, and the negative physical and psychological outcomes can impair child development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze how district and school administrators understand
the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California.
District administrators included five special education coordinators and one transformative SEL
coach. School/site administrators included two elementary principals and one high school
assistant principal. This study reveals what district and school administrators have learned from
their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as it relates to understanding how
trauma affects learning, the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of trauma for student
health, and improving academic outcomes. Above all, this research study highlights best
34

practices in the field of education, effectively implementing trauma-informed practices on school
campuses. This study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis theoretical framework as a lens
to understand district leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on their
ability to meet the needs of students impacted by trauma in their schools.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability
to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student
achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators
developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized
children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
Sample and Population
This study used qualitative methods to collect and analyze the data. Participants in this
study included district and school leaders in Southern California school districts. All of the
participants served in Southern California public school districts during the 2020–2021 school
year. I interviewed district and school leaders from three Southern California school districts to
understand their perceptions of the effects of trauma, particularly on student outcomes, practices
they have implemented to support students affected by trauma, and additional resources needed
to help them in this work.
35

Nine district and school administrators were interviewed in this study, three from each
district. District A participants included two district-level special education coordinators and one
assistant principal. District B’s participants consisted of two elementary principals and one
district-level special education coordinator. District C’s participants included two district-level
special education coordinators and one district-level SEL coordinator.
With over a thousand school districts in Southern California, three districts were chosen
based on the following criteria: diverse enrollment size, diverse number of students economically
challenged, and availability of researcher contacts. District and school administrators were
included in the study in order to facilitate timely interviews. Understandably, the impact of
COVID-19 on educational leaders, including teacher burnout and shortages, has a role in
administrator availability for doctoral research. According to a 2021 survey conducted by the
National Association of Secondary Principals, four out of 10 principals are expected to leave the
profession in the next 3 years.
Participants were recruited for this research based on personal contacts and thanked in
advance for their consideration and time. Every effort was made to make the interview times less
stressful for participants, including weekend days and times. Table 1 shows the three districts
included in the study. Numbers have been rounded to protect the identity of the districts.

36

Table 1
Districts Participating in the Study
Population Unified school
district (A)
Unified school
district (B)
Unified school
district (C)
Enrollment < 5,000 10,000–30,000 > 50,000
English language
learners
15% 10% 40%
Free or reduced-price
lunch
20% 20% 70%
Number of students
with IEPs
10% 10% 12%
Students economically
disadvantaged
15% 20% 70%

Knowledge gained from the interviews provided insight into interventions or innovative
practices that educational leaders have developed to support students impacted by traumatic
experiences and where additional work needs to be done. An understanding of how equipped
educational leaders feel to support traumatized children and what resources are needed to support
them in this work will support children reaching their potential in K–12 schools.
The study involved qualitative data collected from open-ended interview questions. The
interview participants consisted of both male and female educational leaders who served in
public school districts in the 2021–2022 academic year. Interview participants had 2 or more
years of experience as an educational leader in the district. District A participants included two
special education coordinators and one elementary principal. District B’s participants consisted
of two elementary principals and one special education coordinator, and District C’s participants
included two special education coordinators and one SEL coordinator.
37

Instrumentation and Protocols
The research methodology included qualitative data from open-ended interview
questions. The interviews included a description of the research study, topic, and purpose.
Participants were encouraged to contribute with the assurance of data being shared with them at
the study’s completion. All of the participants were also assured that all information provided
would be voluntary and strictly confidential. Names of individuals, districts, and schools were
not included in the research outcomes.
Qualitative data were assembled through the use of semi-structured interviews and
targeted research questions. This method provided an opportunity for the researcher to unearth
how district and school administrators understand trauma and how it can impact student
outcomes. The topic was complex, and the form of inquiry attempted to reveal the breadth of the
matter. The interview protocol consisted of seven primary interview questions (see Appendix A).
The research questions were designed to understand the problem of practice from the role of
district and school administrators. Within the seven questions, there were additional follow-up
questions, as needed, in Questions 3 and 4. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the
researcher derives meaning from the data by assuming an inductive stance. Follow-up questions,
initiated from open-ended questions, were included in the interview process in order to collect
additional information when data needed to be clarified.
I conducted the interviews via Zoom technology. The interviews were approximately 40
minutes long. Participants were given the option of telephone, in person, or on a device. All of
the participants selected to have the interview using Zoom video technology and consented to
having the interview recorded. Thorough interview notes were taken throughout each interview.
Nine participants yielded applicable outcomes for a comprehensive assessment.
38

In addition to researching how district and school administrators understand trauma and
how it affects student achievement, it was indispensable to interview district and school
administrators to understand interventions or innovative practices they have developed to support
students impacted by traumatic experiences. Furthermore, the interviews were used to
understand how equipped district and school administrators feel to support traumatized children
and what resources are needed to support them in this work. The interview questions addressed
all four research questions.
Data Collection
I communicated with research participants via email. I contacted three administrators,
one from each district, that I knew prior to this study. I interviewed two special education
coordinators, district-level administrators, and one elementary principal, a school administrator. I
interviewed one special education coordinator from the smallest district and one from the largest.
By email, I provided them with information about the research along with a request for an
interview, including an attachment with a more detailed summary of the research (see Appendix
B). Participant selection was based on the availability of educational leaders at three school
districts in Southern California. Participants who did not respond to the email to schedule an
interview were contacted via email a week after delivery. A second email soliciting their support
highlighted the value and importance of the research. A follow-up email was delivered to every
participant who completed an interview to thank them for their time (see Appendix C). On
average, the interview required 40 minutes to complete.
Interviews were scheduled based on the responses to the email and participant
recommendations. All three administrators initially contacted via email provided personal
recommendations for additional participants in their districts. They emailed colleagues to
39

introduce me to them. District A participants included two special education coordinators and
one elementary principle. District B’s participants consisted of two elementary principals and
one special education coordinator, and District C’s participants included two special education
coordinators and one SEL coordinator. Interviews were scheduled approximately 2 weeks in
advance in order to provide adequate notice and assure participants’ comfort with the process. I
asked all the participants for permission to record the interview to ensure data would be
transcribed accurately for data analysis (Creswell, 2014). I sent an email thanking the participant
for scheduling an interview via Zoom.
Data Analysis
This research study used a qualitative method approach, incorporating data from
interviews. According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), qualitative researchers are interested in
studying the natural environment and how people make sense of their experiences in their
environment. All of the items in the interview protocol were directly linked to the research
questions, and they guided the study’s data analysis.
I composed reports after the collection of data, documenting the data from each
interview. I transcribed recorded interviews using Transcription Hub software. During the data
analysis process, the method of data collection afforded me the opportunity to review
participants’ interviews numerous times (Creswell, 2014). Rigorous examination of the research
questions posed by this study required measures to ensure the reliability of the data and the
process, such as in-depth interviews and the use of tables to record data. Though the sample for
the qualitative data was small—nine district and school administrators—this was still
appropriate, as qualitative research can be both small and purposeful (Merriam & Grenier, 2019).
Research findings are not compromised by having a small sample size (Merriam & Tisdell,
40

2016). Qualitative data with an extensive literature review was instrumental in identifying how
equipped educational leaders feel to support traumatized children and what additional resources
are needed to support them in this work.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis was used as a theoretical framework for
understanding educator knowledge about the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12
school districts in the state of California. The framework served as a lens to understand district
and school leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and their ability to
meet the needs of students impacted by trauma in their schools. The purpose of this research is to
understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that are barriers to district and
school administrators and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets they bring,
ensuring that traumatized children receive appropriate interventions and supports. This
framework highlights assets and develops positive solutions to performance gaps and
organizational difficulties.
Data were coded, themed, and then analyzed. The data analysis consisted of several steps
in order to determine the findings and themes across the data. Each participant’s interview
recording, assessed with both audio and written transcripts, allowed for the creation of memos
with themes and insights in relation to the four research questions. Data, interpreted with lean
coding, was in reference to the theoretical framework of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
and created in alignment with research questions and prior literature.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Investigating and improving the learning of all traumatized children is valuable
educational research. Several measures were taken to provide credibility to the data and develop
41

the trustworthiness of the study. The purpose of the study was stated clearly for interview
participants and framed appropriately to make it easy to understand.
In order to be a critically conscious educational researcher, recognizing and analyzing
educational systems of inequality requires investigating positionality and epistemology. The
researcher is the primary agent of data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such,
positionality encompasses ethnicity, sexuality, gender, nationality, and spirituality and provides
the lenses of historical oppression. The identities each researcher holds are complex and
nuanced. These identities are multi-faceted and evolving, not static but fluid (Douglas & Nganga,
2015).
Researcher positionality shapes the agenda related to the research questions. An
awareness and understanding of researcher biases brought to the study are required to mitigate
biases (Creswell, 2014). For example, I am aware that my role as an educator in special
education might result in advocating for responses during the interviews. In addition, my
positionality as a child growing up in poverty and being a beneficiary of welfare for over 10
years may bias my interpretation of the interviewees’ responses. I sought to have reactions and
perceptions materialize holistically (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, a persistent self-
reflective process was undertaken by documenting individual and subjective judgments and
experiences when interviewing participants and examining documents and artifacts (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Ethical Considerations
I adhered to the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
guidelines and procedures throughout the study. I maintained field notes throughout the data
collection and analysis stages. Additionally, participants’ identities were protected, and they
42

were advised that they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time and afforded the
opportunity to revoke consent for any reason. No participant requested to revoke consent. I
ensured that adequate information was provided to interview participants in order for them to
make informed decisions about the risks and benefits of participating in the research study.
Furthermore, before initiating the research, I successfully obtained certification by the
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative as a qualified investigator to conduct the research
study.
A declaration of conflicting interests was made with no potential conflicts with respect to
the research, authorship, and publication of the research. Research participants were not offered
any incentives for their contribution to the study (Glesne, 2011). While disseminating
information, I ensured that the study had sound literature to support reasoning and potential
findings.
According to Locke et al. (2010), “no single flaw makes a report useless for all purposes”
(p. 143). The research design could have been improved upon by taking an authentically random
sample of educational leaders; however, the time-consuming and potentially costly difficulty of
soliciting a truly random sample would not entirely eliminate any bias in the findings (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The research design included a sampling size that was indicative of the wider
population.
Summary
A qualitative approach was employed by soliciting data from interviews, and an
extensive review of the literature was undertaken. The four research questions informed a
complex analysis to understand district and school leaders’ perceptions and the effect of trauma
on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in Southern California. Furthermore, the research
43

highlighted best practices in the field of education that are effectively addressing trauma-
informed practices on school campuses. Chapter Four delineates the findings of the study, and
Chapter Five presents a discussion of the findings, including recommendations for further
practice.

44

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents an analysis of interview data to inform how district and school
administrators understand the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in
the state of California. While there are many studies that have sought to understand the impact of
trauma on children and learning, there is limited research on the role of district and school
administrators educating traumatized children. This research reveals what district and school
administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as
it relates to understanding how trauma affects student learning, effective ways of addressing the
impact of trauma, and how to improve student outcomes. Best practices in the field of education
are highlighted, specifically implementing trauma-informed practices on school campuses.
District and school administrators from three Southern California school districts were
interviewed to understand administrator perceptions of the effects of trauma, particularly on
student outcomes, including practices that are being implemented to support students effected by
trauma and additional resources needed to help educators in this work. Qualitative methods were
employed to collect and analyze data from open-ended interview questions. Field notes were
maintained throughout the data collection and analysis stages. Additionally, several measures, as
discussed in Chapter Three, were taken to develop the trustworthiness of the study and provide
credibility to the data.
Southern California is home to over a thousand school districts. Three districts in
California were selected based on the following criteria: diverse enrollment size, diverse number
of students economically challenged, and availability of researcher contacts. The interview
participants consisted of both male and female district and school administrators who served in
45

public school districts in the 2021–2022 academic year. They represent diverse backgrounds and
have 2 or more years of experience as a district and school administrator in their district.
The findings presented in this chapter will be arranged by the following research
questions that were used to guide the study:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability
to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student
achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators
developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized
children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
Interview Participants
Nine participants who served in Southern California public school districts during the
2020–2021 school year were identified for this study. Participants in this study included district
and school administrators. District administrators included five special education coordinators
and one transformative SEL coach. School site administrators included two elementary
principals and one high school assistant principal.
Following IRB approval, I communicated with research participants via email. I
contacted three administrators, one from each district, who were known to me. Two special
education coordinators, district-level administrators, and one elementary principal, a school
administrator, were interviewed. One special education coordinator from the smallest district and
one from the largest district were interviewed. A school administrator was interviewed for
46

district B. They were provided an email with information about the research with a request for an
interview, including an attachment with a more detailed summary of the research (see Appendix
B). Each participant was provided an email, including a summary of the study. Participant
selection was based on researcher connections and the availability of district and school
administrators. Administrators had served in their roles in their respective districts for at least 2
years. Interviews, conducted in April, May, and June 2022, were scheduled approximately 2
weeks in advance in order to provide adequate notice and assure participants’ comfort with the
process (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). A follow-up email was delivered to every participant who
completed an interview to thank them for their time. On average, the interviews took 40 minutes
to complete.
Participants were asked for permission to record the interview in order to ensure data
would be transcribed accurately for data analysis (Creswell, 2014). I composed reports after the
collection of data, documenting the data from each interview. Recorded interviews were also
transcribed using Transcription Hub software. Rigorous examination of the research questions
posed by this study required measures to ensure the reliability of the data and the process, such
as in-depth interviews and the use of tables to record data. I used letters of the alphabet to name
participants (e.g., Administrator A, Administrator B, etc.).
Equitable gender representation in this research was limited due to the availability of
researcher contacts. Eighty-eight percent of the participants interviewed were female.
Historically, teachers have been predominantly female while educational leadership has been
primarily male (Tallerico & Blount, 2004).
All of the interview participants began their careers in the classroom as a teacher. The
average number of years working in education was 21 years with almost 200 years of
47

educational experience combined. Forty-four percent of the participants have earned a doctoral
degree, and one participant was a third-year doctoral student at the time of the interview. All of
the participants had earned at least one postgraduate degree and a teaching credential. See Table
2.

Table 2
Summary of Participants
Participants Current role Years of service
A Assistant principal, high school 19
B Coordinator, special education 29
C Coordinator, special education 20
D Principal, elementary 13
E Coordinator, special education 15
F Principal, elementary 27
G Transformative SEL coach 22
H
I
Coordinator, special education
Coordinator, special education
23
22

48

Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do district and school leaders perceive trauma
affecting children’s ability to self-regulate on school campuses?” This first question focused on
how district and school administrators understand trauma, specifically how they perceive trauma
can influence a student’s ability to self-regulate. Dialogue around trauma almost exclusively
focuses on students’ maladaptive behaviors. Enabling district and school administrators to
develop an understanding of how they perceive trauma is essential to improve outcomes for
traumatized children. The following themes were prevalent throughout the interviews: (a)
administrator perceptions of traumatized children; (b) recognizing maladaptive behaviors as
reactions to trauma; and (c) the role of trauma in self-regulation and the need for SEL.
Administrator Perceptions of Traumatized Children
Participants were asked to reflect on their understanding of trauma. All nine interviewees
were able to identify that children can be traumatized from a single traumatic event or from
exposure to chronic trauma. Four participants started out their careers working in special
education, and they described how they worked directly with students impacted by trauma.
Participant E compared their experience teaching special education in Colorado and California
and reflected that there was more training and support in Colorado. They shared, “there was a lot
of focus on trauma-informed care for schools.” Another participant reflected on their teaching
experience that was not in special education; however, they were a reading specialist working
with students who had experienced trauma and were struggling to access grade-level curriculum.
Participant A did not start out in special education. They reflected on their more than 20 years of
experience working with maltreated children:
49

I come from high-need areas, or large urban districts, under-funded, under-supported
communities. So, I’ve worked in high-crime communities and brand-new immigrant
communities. And so, with that comes a lot of trauma because when you have the
poverty, you have incarcerated parents, and you’re dealing with drug addiction, and
you’re dealing with, you know, food and housing insecurity and violence and, so, all
kinds of trauma, right.
It was noted by Participant A, a school administrator, that they have never been in a classroom
where the majority of students have not experienced trauma in one form or another, stating, “not
all, but many have experienced trauma in one form or another.” Participant A continued to
reflect on their understanding of trauma:
So, you have to have a sophisticated understanding, and you have to incorporate, you
have to manage your expectations about what behaviors mean, how to handle them, how
to mitigate them, how to support social-emotional wellness, through, you know, creating
a sense of community and belonging, and safety and predictability, all of those things …
honoring the way kids communicate and learn who have been affected by trauma. … So,
you really teach without addressing it. You know, otherwise, it just becomes like, a
punitive sort of, like, compliance-driven place instead of an authentic engagement,
environment where kids can thrive.
District and school administrators’ experience working with traumatized children was reflected
in all three districts.
It is interesting to note that all the participants except one shared that they had personally
taught students impacted by trauma. The exception was Interviewee C, who reported, “I can’t
say that I’ve worked directly with kids who have had trauma.” This was of particular importance
50

given her teaching career began in special education. There are a disproportionate number of
traumatized and minority students in special education programs (Heller, 1982). Not recognizing
that children in special education classes have most likely been exposed to trauma in higher
numbers is concerning, especially given the participant’s promotion to a district administrative
role supervising special education personnel and classrooms.
It is essential that all educators have an understanding of trauma and recognize that many
students have had traumatic experiences or are experiencing ongoing trauma. The majority of the
participants provided specific examples of how students can be impacted by different kinds of
trauma. Participant examples of trauma exposure included high-crime neighborhoods, drug and
substance addictions, online pornography, food and housing insecurity, incarcerated parents, a
tragic event, immigration, living in poverty, COVID-19, racial trauma, generational trauma,
foster care, physical impairments, and the loss of a parent or caregiver. Participant A stated,
“Trauma is insidious and widespread. It’s not just this one big catastrophic event.” They
continued, “If you don’t have a trauma-informed lens, or you don’t have sensitivity toward
culturally responsive teaching, then teachers are exacerbating the trauma. A classroom can be a
very traumatizing place. A school can be a very traumatizing place.” Participant E echoed the
sentiment of trauma being pervasive, stating, “All kids have some level of trauma. Being
understanding of that, you have to set up the learning environment for kids to have better
access.”
According to the Presidential Task Force on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in
Children and Adolescents (2008), by age 16, more than two-thirds of children report at least one
traumatic event. The task force also reported that sexual childhood abuse, a common form of
trauma, is estimated for 25 to 43%. Interestingly, two district administrators shared that trauma
51

was overused by educators and families without an adequate understanding of the definition.
Participant B stated, “I think trauma is overused. It’s like bullying. Bullying has become this
giant, enormous word that covers anyone not being nice.” In addition, Participant B shared
frustration at trauma being overused. They stated, “Parents are telling me they’re traumatized
because their kid was late to school, or they didn’t get to go to a party.” Participant G also
shared,
I think, first of all, the word “trauma” is very overused. I think people like to throw it
around because it sounds like the cool thing, and it sounds like we know what we are
talking about. I do think it’s misused, which kind of loses the power and the impact.
Participants B and G expressed concern that misemploying trauma to encompass many things
could overextend it in such a way that traumatized children would not receive the support and
services needed.
Recognizing Maladaptive Behaviors As Trauma Responses
Dr. van der Kolk’s and Dr. Perry’s groundbreaking research into the neurobiology of
childhood trauma has shifted the narrative from treating diagnoses, such as oppositional defiant
disorder and disciplining behaviors (van der Kolk, 2014), to understanding the role of trauma in
development and treating the whole child (Anda et al., 2006; Darling-Hammond & Cook-
Harvey, 2018). Participants uniformly agreed that behavior challenges were often prevalent with
traumatized children. Participant A, a school administrator, shared concerns that students were
over-identified for special education when they exhibited various behaviors. Participant A stated,
You have to have a sophisticated understanding, and you have to incorporate and manage
your expectations about what behaviors mean. … Otherwise, it just becomes a punitive
52

compliance-driven place instead of an authentic engagement, an environment where kids
can thrive.
Participant G mirrored Participant A’s sentiment by stating,
A lot of behaviors that we see are not necessarily misbehaviors; it’s just a trauma
response. … It’s really important you have an understanding, right. Then you know what
strategies to use with those students rather than just a form of discipline or punishment.
Participant B offered a perspective on escape behaviors. They stated, “I think there are
individuals who reach out to drugs and alcohol, and I would add vaping and now gaming to that
list. … So, here we are in schools competing with this.”
Participant D, a school administrator, shared that, in their opinion, schools historically
had a very reactive approach to student behaviors. Recently, especially given awareness of
trauma due to COVID-19, schools been more proactive and have been putting supports in place,
such as wellness centers and additional counselors. According to Participant D, “I think the pivot
that occurred during or after the pandemic, during I guess because we’re still in it, I think there’s
much more recognition that there needs to be a more proactive approach … trying to frontload
skills.” A proactive approach shared by Participant E, a district administrator, was the
implementation of an online program to monitor student communication for concerns.
Participant E shared,
If there were red flags, like if kids were searching for things that were really concerning,
that might give an impression that they were in some sort of crisis, we would reach out
with a team to find out more about what was going on.
53

Participant E also highlighted that it was incumbent on district and school administrators to
support teachers in understanding that “all kids have some level of trauma” and being
understanding of that while “setting up the learning environment for kids to have better access.”
Participant F shared a viewpoint that sometimes student behaviors can present in a
positive way and can be just as concerning as maladaptive behaviors. In their experience, they
observed overly compliant behaviors from children in the foster care system, particularly female
students. They stated that the students could have “higher attachment … friendly and really
ready to please you.” Participant F described students being compliant, docile, and overly
accommodating as possibly being indicative of a “trauma coping mechanism.” Maladaptive
responses can be observed in children with different types of childhood trauma, requiring
emotional support and understanding from district and school administrators.
The Role of Trauma in Self-Regulation and Social-Emotional Learning
According to research, securely attached newborns have caregivers who provide
consistent safety and comfort, which in turn establishes a foundation of self-regulation, a “key
factor in healthy coping throughout life” (van der Kolk, 2014, p. 115). In order to deal with
threats, real or imagined, traumatized children have biological systems that elevate stress
hormones. According to van der Kolk, a biological pervasive pattern of dysregulation impedes a
child’s ability to pay attention and get along with others. Extreme mood changes and intense
feelings make it incredibly difficult for children to communicate effectively and make
connections with their peers or adults. All the participants mirrored this theme found throughout
the literature review; trauma impedes an individual’s ability to self-regulate.
Participant A gave the opinion that self-regulation is “difficult because you know they are
in survival mode.” Participant F stated, “I think trauma comes in different forms. There is a
54

direct connection between their ability to regulate emotionally.” Additionally, Participant G
recognized that trauma could impair a student’s ability to self-regulate and posited an optimistic
approach. They shared,
Students need a great deal of support to reinforce the skills that they are taught to self-
regulate. They can learn how to hopefully, ultimately, self-regulate themselves and learn
how to put all the strategies that they’ve learned into use and practice.
Modern societies in the 21st century are becoming aware of the need for schools to
explicitly teach and support children’s social and emotional learning (Fernández-Berrocal &
Ruiz, 2008). Intellectual and academic pursuits in isolation have not improved student outcomes,
and an educational movement is underway to provide practical strategies to support the “whole
child.” In the United States, the role of schools in addressing the needs of all children is
relatively new. All the district and school administrators were cognizant of the need for SEL and
understanding of the role schools have in explicitly teaching children how to self-regulate.
Furthermore, all the participants have been beneficiaries of educational research that prioritizes
educating the whole child, teaching skills of self-regulation, and aligning emotional intelligence
with instructional goals.
Summary of Research Question 1 Findings
Participants’ perception of trauma was that it negatively affected children’s ability to self-
regulate on school campuses. An understanding of trauma and a recognition that many students
are experiencing ongoing trauma or have had traumatic experiences was reflective throughout
participant responses. Additionally, maladaptive behaviors were discussed within the context of
trauma, and participants recognized they could be trauma responses. Furthermore, trauma was
understood uniformly as an impediment to children’s ability to self-regulate, and participants
55

were aligned in their beliefs that creating an optimal learning environment, with explicit teaching
of social and emotional learning, was incumbent on all educators.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “How do district and school leaders perceive trauma
affecting student achievement?” The purpose of asking how participants perceive student
achievement being impacted by trauma, if at all, was to understand how district and school
leaders recognize how learning is negatively impacted by trauma. According to the Child Mind
Institute, children exposed to traumatic experiences are at risk for difficulties forming
relationships and communication skills, negative thinking, diminished concentration and
memory, hypervigilance, and executive challenges. Additionally, learning differences, difficulty
with attention, and sleep disturbances are associated with changes to the brain resulting from
trauma exposure (Nemeroff, 2016).
The brainstem, limbic brain, and prefrontal cortex, designed to develop from the bottom
up, are all highly sensitive to threat and trauma exposure (De Young et al., 2011; van der Kolk,
2014). A growing body of educational research highlights the needs of traumatized children,
specifically as it pertains to learning and academic achievement. According to the World Health
Organization (2002), early childhood exposure to trauma and subsequent brain development can
result in impaired cognitive development resulting in lifelong consequences.
All the district and school leaders were able to recognize that academic achievement can
be more difficult for a student who has experienced a traumatizing event or is experiencing
complex trauma. Not surprisingly, trauma can lead to problems with academic performance. The
following themes were prevalent throughout the interviews: (a) hierarchy of needs of traumatized
children, (b) learning loss, and (c) special education referrals. Participants as a whole did not
56

speak at length or provide in-depth information as to how trauma can affect student achievement.
They appeared uniformly resolute that trauma interferes with learning.
Hierarchy of Needs for Traumatized Children
Participants repeatedly spoke of traumatized children having a fight, flight, or freeze
response. They recognized that traumatized children are often in survival mode. According to
van der Kolk (2014), “The most important job of the brain is to ensure our survival, even under
the most miserable conditions. Everything else is secondary” (p. 55). Participant A shared, “If
you’re traumatized, you can’t retain information. You are always in a fight, flight, or freeze
response. Then you’re not in a position to learn physiologically.” Participant C reflected a similar
viewpoint by offering the following nonreciprocal question: “When you are just trying to be in a
state of normal, then how can you do things that are challenging and difficult such as
schoolwork?” Participant B also offered a nonreciprocal question that mirrored Participant C’s
response. They stated, “When you’re sad or something terrible has happened to you, … why
would a test or an assessment be a priority for you?”
Trauma and Educational Learning Loss
In March 2020, schools in the United States and across the world closed. The (ongoing)
COVID-19 global pandemic, estimated to have affected 1.6 billion children, resulted in
significant disruptions to education systems. According to a 2021 report by the United Nations
Children’s Fund, learning loss is not a novel idea from the pandemic. Historically, learning loss
as a concept has referenced school absences, summer holidays, dropouts, and ineffective
teaching.
Four participants referenced learning loss as a possible consequence of trauma and in
relation to trauma from the global pandemic. Participant A, a school administrator, raised
57

concerns about a decline in attendance, work completion, and grades for traumatized children.
Particularly since the beginning of the pandemic, “kids that were normally getting As, Bs and Cs
are now failing and getting Ds, and now even having a hard time coming to school.” Three other
participants also raised attendance as a critical area of concern with academic performance.
Interestingly, Participant D, a school administrator, highlighted an upside to the pandemic. They
were of the opinion that the pandemic highlighted the academic needs of students, which has, in
turn, fostered a more proactive approach from district and school leaders. They shared, “Even if
they aren’t presenting with challenges, we’re trying to fill in potential gaps.”
The Relationship Between Trauma and Special Education Referrals
Exposure to childhood trauma can result in difficulties with inattention, impulsivity,
learning differences, defiance, and aggression, contributing to a pathway of victimization to
delinquency (Chapman et al., 2006). Difficulties with inattention, impulsivity, defiance, and
aggression can be pervasive impediments to academic performance and achievement. Participant
F, a school administrator, shared concerns that students presenting with trauma responses, such
as “shut[ing] down or kids that are more violent,” can be over-identified for special education.
Four other administrators echoed this. Two participants shared that while they did not have the
exact numbers, referrals for special education services have increased significantly, especially
since the pandemic. Participant E, a district administrator, shared their district has had an
increase in special education referrals for children as young as preschool, as well as grades
kindergarten through Grade 12. Additionally, Participant C, a district administrator, reported that
their district is now seeing high school students qualify for special education “because of the
trauma that they have been put through with COVID.”
58

According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), educational
inequities are especially apparent with rates of discipline and special education enrollment.
NCLD’s 2020 report states, “the overrepresentation of children in special education programs
causes short-term and long-term harm, specifically for students of color” (p. 2). Participants who
referenced special education shared concerns that a referral for special education without positive
behavioral interventions, restorative practices, and counseling could perpetuate a historical
pattern of discrimination. Participant D, a school administrator, reflected the need to use
discretion when evaluating:
A child could have gone through something life-changing and altering and the impact
that has, but also not relying on assuming that the impact of trauma means that they need
to be assessed for special education, there’s a balance toward something in the middle.
Two participants, a district administrator and a school administrator, from different
districts, discussed reshaping school discipline policies by ensuring restorative measures rather
than punitive measures. Participant G, a district administrator, advocated protecting a student’s
sense of security by requiring restorative practices, such as counseling, as an appropriate
response to disruptive behaviors, which can safeguard a traumatized child’s need for safety while
ameliorating the potential risks of harm by dropping out of school or becoming involved in the
juvenile justice system. Participant G also addressed concerns that special education referrals
were alarming given they wanted to “make sure we weren’t misplacing students in ED
(emotionally disturbed) classes, because really the ED setting, which is for children with
behavior and emotional issues and challenges, it’s really, it is truly a school-to-prison pipeline.”
Participant A queried,
59

How do we approach discipline, using intervention and relationship before punishment,
and, you know, escalation? I think we have some learning to do there. … I think it takes,
it’s going to take a shift of mindset and providing teachers with the skills they need, and
the awareness, they need to operate classrooms a little differently.
Both Participants G and A believed discipline reform could have a positive impact on all aspects
of school culture, especially student achievement.
Residential treatment centers can be necessary for children who are unable to make
educational progress and require a more restrictive setting to support their social or emotional
needs. Residential care for students with disabilities authorized in the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 300.104 states,
If placement in a public or private residential program is necessary to provide special
education and related services to a child with a disability, the program, including non-
medical care and room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child.
Residential placements, often out of state, are expensive. School districts brought to due process
by parents who receive favorable decisions can also receive reimbursement for any costs
incurred. Four participants shared that referrals for residential treatment had increased
significantly within their districts, especially since the beginning of the pandemic. Participants
who raised concerns regarding an increase in residential referrals were representative of each of
the three districts in this study. Three were district administrators, one from each district, and one
school administrator.
A referral for residential, including the necessary assessments and funding approved by a
school district, are not a guarantee of placement. Participant E, a district administrator,
highlighted concerns:
60

So, not only have not we had an increase in referrals, we have had where we have not
been able to find a place to place kids. So, once we do an assessment right, and we offer
residential. … We’ve had some kids that we haven’t been able to even find because
they’re either overloaded, they don’t have the space or some of the kids’ behaviors are so
significant that we’re having a hard time finding a place that will take them because of
that.
Participant C echoed similar concerns and added that children requiring partial hospitalizations
had also increased. Of note, Participant C, a district administrator from the smallest school
district, brought attention to a contributing factor for residential referrals. They stated,
There’s this huge increase in social media and just being on computers. … We had kids
end up going to residential placement because of what they were watching at home
unsupervised. Watching a bunch of things that had to do with death and suicide.
Another participant (G), not in direct reference to residential placement, mirrored similar
concerns regarding the use of technology by children. They shared, “We’ve got a lot of very
young kids that are doing things like talking about porn or are oversexualized. … [They spend] a
lot of time on the computer that we don’t have control over.” It is important for educators to be
aware of the impact of trauma and the relationship between trauma, behavior, and special
education referrals. Furthermore, educators need to be cognizant of the disproportionate number
of special education referrals for traumatized children.
Summary of Research Question 2 Findings
District and school administrators demonstrated consensus with their perception of how
trauma can negatively influence student achievement. They recognized that children exposed to
traumatic experiences are at risk for problems with academic performance; however, they did not
61

speak at length or provide in-depth analysis of how and why trauma can affect learning. While
uniformly resolute that trauma interferes with learning, participants were inclined to discuss the
negative implication of compromised academic performance, such as learning loss and a
disproportionate number of special education referrals.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “What interventions or innovative practices have district and
school administrators developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic
experiences?” The purpose of asking district and school administrators to share interventions or
innovative practices was to assess the current level of support for traumatized children and share
ideas, practices and learning for adoption in schools and districts. The status quo in education is
failing traumatized children. According to data from the California Department of Education for
the 2020–2021 academic year, there is a significant discrepancy between graduation rates for
students from historically marginalized groups such as children of color, children in foster care,
homeless children, children from low-income or working-class families, and children with
disabilities. As shown in Table 3, in 4 years, Asian students graduated from high school at 94.1%
and white students at 88.5% compared to 55.7% of homeless children and only 68.6% of
students with disabilities.

62

Table 3
Graduation Rates
Student group 4-year graduation rate: 2020–2021
African American 72.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 73%
Asian 94.1%
Hispanic or Latino 80.5%
White 88.5%
English learners 67.1%
Foster youth 67.1%
Homeless youth 55.7%
Migrant education 67.8%
Socioeconomically disadvantaged 80.4%
Students with disabilities 68.6%

Given concerning rates of childhood trauma (Identifying, Preventing, and Treating
Childhood Trauma, 2019), it is surprising that there is little research connecting childhood
trauma to graduation rates and higher education (Lecy & Osteen, 2022). Innumerable children,
deeply influenced by traumatic events, struggle to learn in schools. Some of the current
educational crisis, specifically the high school dropout rate, could be explained by traumatic
events (Dyregrov, 2004). Three main themes emerged regarding participants’ understanding of
interventions or innovative practices: (a) mental health support, (b) wraparound services, and (c)
academic supports.
Traumatized children require interventions or innovative practices in order to support
them with their educational challenges. To varying degrees, all participants spoke positively
about their district or schools’ efforts to develop interventions or innovative practices to support
63

students impacted by traumatic experiences. Participant B, a district administrator, shared their
high regard for the educational team in place for developing practices. They believed that the
quality of personnel and commitment to teamwork at the district level was a powerful factor in
developing programs specific for traumatized children. Of note, they described in detail the
quality of professionalism from the superintendent to assistants and secretaries. They believed
everyone within the district office was integral in making practices successful. Participant G, a
district administrator, echoed similar regard for their district’s approach; however, they also
conveyed that the district needed to do a lot more. Participant G stated,
I know that we are not really where a lot of districts are. There are some districts that are
very, very far ahead of us that have been doing this work for many, many, many years.
And I know we’re making progress as a district, and we now see the importance of it. So,
I’m hopeful, we’re on the right trajectory.
Administrative Role in Providing Mental Health Supports
Every participant discussed the need for interventions and innovation with mental health
supports. All three districts in this study have implemented a mental health center at the
secondary level. Two districts had mental health centers at both their middle school campuses
and high school campuses. The district with a mental health center only on the high school
campuses have plans to open them at the middle school level in the upcoming academic year.
Participant A, a school administrator, shared their perspective on their district’s wellness center,
developed prior to the pandemic:
We are very privileged to already have a wellness center. … So, in a way, we were kind
of ahead of the game because the kids already had a place to go. And it was already sort
of a cultural norm in the school community for kids to go, there was not a taboo attached
64

to it. So, I think a lot of the crises were prevented or intercepted with these early
interventions using our mental health services and supports that we have available.
The wellness center at another district, called the Family Resource Center, is tasked with similar
responsibilities with families/caregivers also being able to access resources. Of note, the district
with the family component was the largest district in this study. The larger enrollment could be
responsible for the additional funds needed to operate a center with a larger scope of practice.
Another intervention that was common across all three districts was the increase in
funding for additional therapists, counselors, and social workers across all grades. In one
example, Participant C, a district administrator, shared,
We have increased our counseling support by hiring mental health counselors and
therapists just for the general education population, not for special education necessarily
… so that we can do preventive measures before a student needs to be evaluated for
special education.
Participant B, a district administrator from the same district, provided additional details:
“We have really talented counselors at very small ratios … because the schools here are small;
we have three counselors per grade level at the middle schools and at the high school. … So,
very remarkable ratios.”
While all the participants described the concept of additional funding, specifically for
mental health professionals, as an innovative intervention, five participants specifically
highlighted those positions needed to be resourced by diverse practitioners such as counselors,
marriage and family therapists, and social workers. Participant H described her appreciation of
diverse practitioners as follows:
65

They have teams. … So, the benefit of it is that, well, a lot of our black and brown
families actually, because of cultural reasons don’t respond well to therapy, right. They
don’t want a therapist. They don’t like the term mental health, mental illness. … There’s
certain stigmas culturally associated with that. … And, so, it kind of breaks down
barriers. So, the families can see, they might be resistant to like site-based mental health,
but they might say yes to what the center provides. And, then they get to kind of see that
it’s okay, that there’s nothing super stigmatizing about it. And we really have made a lot
of inroads with some of our families that normally wouldn’t have responded in that way.
So, that’s really great.
In reference to their wellness center, “a state-of-the-art counseling center,” Participant B shared
their appreciation for the different roles represented,
They have counselors, which are usually people getting their PhDs or getting their
masters becoming MFTs. … They also have wonderful administration and nurses’ health
aides. On top of that, we decided in our department to look even a little deeper, and we
decided to reach out to agencies, and we hired marriage and family therapists … one full
time at the middle school. So, now we have these MFTs. We had to disaggregate what
they would do so that we didn’t have all these overlaps, and so, we concentrated with
them working with the general education population, whereas our special needs
population had our school psychologists. So, that was our innovation.
Participant B also shared a favorite addition to the mental health team in their district—a therapy
Berne doodle dog with the added benefit of being hypoallergenic.
One district in particular prioritized mental health services and supports for all children
prior to the pandemic. Participant D, a school administrator, recalled, “Our district allocated a
66

coordinator of mental health services, so that’s a designated district office administrator just to
oversee all mental health supports, educating our counselors and professional development for
them.” Participant E, a district administrator from the same school district, shared their thoughts
on the position. They offered a personalized appreciation: “She’s the one that has spearheaded
the wellness centers … and coordinates our counselors and our clinicians.” Participant D
summed up another example of how their district prioritized mental health supports:
Mental health clinicians typically for districts around us are contracted with the county
office of education, so they don’t keep them in-house. We have instead prioritized it and
hired all of our own mental health clinicians in-house, so we can monitor them, train
them, and continue to, like, develop them to really make sure that we’re addressing the
needs of the students in our district.
Additionally, according to Participant D, the district articulated and defined social-emotional
goals in their local control accountability plan (LCAP). The LCAP is what guides the budget
development process for a district. Participant D shared,
The trickle down of that is each school has a school plan for student success, so a subset
like a school site plan, and we have to write a goal and allocate site funds to target SEL
and well-being. That is really a priority from our superintendent and our school board.
So, with those stakeholders really engaged in that work and recognizing the importance
of it, funds are allocated accordingly.
In each interview, the need for mental health supports for traumatized children was discussed.
All of the participants recognized the administrative role and responsibility of comprehensive
school-based mental health supports to help children achieve more social-emotionally and
academically.
67

Providing Coordinated Community Services for At-Risk Children
According to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), wraparound is a
team-driven service that supports children and families. Comprehensive service plans are
developed by the team with supports embedded for the family, such as a parent partner and a
family facilitator. Strategies to meet the needs of the family are identified by the family. Three
participants, district administrators representing each district, highlighted their districts’ work
with wraparound teams, albeit with individualized titles. Participant C shared that their district
calls their in-house wraparound team intensive support services. The program is a district-
operated program that mirrors wraparound offered by CDSS. Participant C highlighted some of
the program’s features:
That’s in-home behavior services along with counseling support for the parents, and this
is primarily for students that are at home and struggling to get to school. And so, then
they would provide in-home behavior and counseling services to help try to bridge
whatever issues are going on to help get the students to come to school. We also have a
social worker that they can have access to. They can help the parents connect with any
outside services or supports, such as if the parent is struggling, like wanting to get some
private therapy, or mental health therapy, or needing to find a doctor.
Participant C continued to share that the social worker could also help connect the family to
programs such as social skills training.
Participant E provided examples of their district’s services for family, and while they
shared appreciation of the effectiveness of the program, Collaborative Educational Services, they
also shared potential areas of growth. They spoke about the challenges presented, specifically
due to funding. Participant E shared,
68

I think historically there’s possibly been that feeling of this is our lane in the schools, and
this is the lane in community mental health. Aren’t kids at school most of the day? Don’t
they just need special education? Can’t the school take care of that? Doesn’t the school
have resources for that? Where the school says, ‘Well, yes, but we’re focused on the
educational piece, and we’re maxed out on the resources we have, this family or this
student really needs that community-based or outpatient support on a higher level.’
Participant E’s resolve was to collaborate on funding in order to address high staff turnover and
provide wraparound services to families in need, regardless of if they have been afforded an
individualized education program (IEP). Currently, within their district, you can only access
wraparound services/collaborative educational services if the child has been assessed and
qualified for an IEP.
Participant G’s district, the largest district in the study, goes another step further by
providing a resource called Parent University. Participant G shared an example of how they co-
lead a parent series: “We did what we call a growth series, and we unpacked gratitude, resilience,
optimism, and wellness to our parents.” In response to the pandemic and the needs of families,
the district offered courses online. Participant E shared how they were innovative with the
district’s intervention: “So, we go live, we record it, and people can Zoom in and on different
topics, and different speakers will come and speak on things. We provide many resources out to
the community through [Parent University].” Additionally, Participant G highlighted that Parent
University is available to all families in the district, free of charge.
Importance of Implementing Academic Intervention Programs
Participants spoke about the extent their districts and/or schools have developed
academic interventions or innovative practices to support students impacted by traumatic
69

experiences. For the most part, participants from all three districts detailed the effective use of
student study teams (SSTs). In California, based on state law, an SST multi-disciplinary team is
required to convene for a child prior to a referral for a special education assessment. Individual
school sites represented in this study utilized SST as a means of collaboratively addressing a
child’s needs without a predetermination of special education. Participant H shared that in their
district, they also offer attendance review meetings, and SST are not generated based on teacher
identification of student needs: “Parents are also available to call one anytime if they have a
concern and then the team will meet.”
Another academic intervention developed in response to the pandemic, shared by a
school administrator from the smallest district, was an informal grading policy titled “Do No
Harm.” Participant C shared,
As an administration, at the site level and also the district level, all along the way, we
have been coaching teachers and directing our staff to do no harm. … We have to think
about our grading policies, and we have to make accommodations for the things that
people are going through … really trying to emphasize the importance of being sensitive
and compassionate and flexible.
An unexpected downside to the “Do No Harm” policy, according to Participant C, was
a lot of teachers just inflated the grades. Sort of gave away the farm. Just, you know, in
an effort to do no harm, but also in an effort to stay under the radar because life was so
tough. They didn’t want to have to deal with administration or parents, right. One could
argue we did harm that way. Because now you have kids with an A, and they’re not
qualified to do the next class or whatever it takes. They’re not really ready.
70

The same district also offered an independent study option, required by the state of California
during the pandemic; however, they already had developed an innovative program prior to
COVID-19. When distance learning was mandated, the district was able to build on what they
had originally developed, expanding it so all students could have access. According to
Participant C, “Part of that program included the availability of a mental health professional …
and having weekly meetings.” Additionally, while in the early stages, the independent study
program was not accessible for English language learners or students with disabilities, the district
“figured out a way to tie in the supports that those students would need as well.” The district
went another step further by changing the high school bell schedule in order to add a daily
intervention period. Participant C described it as follows:
We call it seventh period. All the teachers are required to be in their classrooms, open
door policy for kids to walk in for individualized support. Some teachers are using that
time in a coordinated way where they are delivering small-group instruction.
Lastly, the district also used stimulus funds to fund one-on-one tutors for students during lunch.
Embedding academic supports within the educational environment was a priority for participants
at the district and school level. All three districts had trauma-informed approaches to academic
supports for all children.
Educator Responsibility to Create the Conditions for Learning
All of the participants spoke with conviction regarding educator responsibility to create
an environment conducive for learning, either within specific classrooms, a school setting or
district. Participant E, a district administrator, described the importance of teachers creating safe
and structured space for children. They shared that teachers should “treat their class as if all kids
are coming with some level of trauma [by] setting up the learning environment and having a
71

good understanding of expectations.” Participant G, also a district administrator from a larger
district, took educator responsibility a step further by advocating the work needs to start with the
educational teams. They stated,
We’re trying to reconnect schools with the understanding that we need to create the
environment that helps our students thrive, and adults, because a lot of our work, we
actually know that anything that’s culture and climate related, actually starts with the
adults. … And we do that by really looking at the conditions for thriving. What do we
need to create an environment where everybody is seen, heard, and valued? How do we
do that? And we know what is the core—that’s relationship building. And, then, there’s a
lot of factors within relationship building like safety, belonging and cultural inclusivity,
and wellness, restorative practices, cultural responsiveness, relational trust, and
engagement.
Participants’ reflections on educator responsibility highlight the need to support children’s social
and emotional development.
Two participants, both elementary school administrators from the same school district,
voiced a need for prioritizing social and emotional curriculum. It is interesting to note that
neither participant advocated for a specific pre-packaged curriculum to implement in their
classrooms. Rather, they discussed opportunities for administrators and educators to share and
access lessons embedded into the school day. Additionally, Participant D communicated that at
their school,
Day-by-day lessons and activities are sent to teachers every month to embed at least 15 to
30 minutes of SEL daily. Our goal eventually in the next 2 years, be able to increase up to
45 minutes daily of targeted SEL instruction in every classroom.
72

Understanding the prerequisite for engagement in learning and academic performance is social
and emotional skills, and the development of these skills is with the educator is a powerful
paradigm shift to support traumatized children.
Summary of Research Question 3 Findings
The purpose of asking district and school administrators to share interventions or
innovative practices was twofold: to assess the current level of support for traumatized children
and to share ideas and practices for adoption in schools and districts. Given the status quo in
education is failing traumatized children, participants from all three districts were aligned in
advocating for interventions or innovative practices to support students impacted by traumatic
experiences. Overall, participants spoke with high regard as to their district’s role in developing
interventions or innovative practices to support students impacted by traumatic experiences
while also recognizing the need for additional research and practical trauma-informed strategies
and supports. Participants described current mental health supports, wraparound services, and
academic supports implemented in their districts.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How equipped do district and school administrators feel to
support traumatized children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?” The
purpose of asking participants to reflect on their perceived confidence and abilities to support
maltreated children was to understand what factors influence their work. Additionally, being able
to identify resources needed to support them in their work as district or school leaders. Two main
themes emerged from their self-examination to implement interventions and perception of
necessary resources: (a) school district bureaucracy and (b) professional development.
73

Bureaucracy of a Larger School District
District and school leaders from the smallest and medium-sized districts were generally
positive about their ability to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children and access
resources. In contrast, all three administrators from the largest district expressed frustrations
about their limitations. During the interview, Participant I declared, “Well, right now, I feel like
we’re lacking, definitely. I feel like there’s not enough support, and I feel like they spread our
counselors and our psychologists very thin at our schools.” They continued to share,
I would say make sure that there’s enough staff to actually complete the jobs that are
needed. … It’s because the turnover is so high now … and early retirement, even with
teachers and counselors, I’ve noticed and nurses, they’re, like, retiring earlier than they
would have.
They followed up with why staffing is so difficult in their district: “I think because it’s so much
stress of them being in the job that requires so much, you know?”
Another participant from the largest school district mirrored Participant I’s assessment
when they shared, “It’s been a really big challenge. … It’s hard in a big district. … I’m going to
definitely say it’s been hard.” Participant G’s perspective was also similar to Participant H. Of
note, all three participants from the largest district worked in a district leadership role.
Participants from the smallest and medium-sized district were more positive and
optimistic about their abilities. They also felt adequately resourced and motivated to build on
interventions that were effective in supporting traumatized children. That is not to say they were
not frustrated to a degree by limitations. Participant C lamented, “I wish there was more that we
could do.” They quickly followed up with an explanation for why more was not done:
74

I believe that we are really well equipped. The struggle is there’s only so much that the
school district can do to help because we are looking at educational impact and
educational needs. So, when you have something that is a trauma that is not school-
related, you know we want to make sure that the parents are also not just relying on the
school districts. That they are getting the mental health and therapeutic support that they
need. So, if the student is having things that are more in-depth, that aren’t really related to
school, that’s where they need to get the support outside. But I believe that we have what
is needed in terms of giving immediate counseling support when we find out and that we
can provide an evaluation fairly quickly and get student services pretty quickly. Whether
they are in special education or not, we make sure we get them some kind of support.
Participant B, a district administrator from the same small district as Participant C, provided a
different perspective regarding district limitation. They challenged the status quo by
recommending districts provide more services, including medical access with doctors and nurses
accessible on-site for children and families. Their perspective was incredibly optimistic as they
remarked, “I think schools are just going to absolutely be a complete hub for all services.”
Professional Development Needs of Educators
Participants’ examination of necessary resources to improve outcomes for maltreated
children highlighted the need for professional development. This need was echoed by both
district and school administrators. Overall, participants perceived the need for professional
development as high and reflected the need for continuous professional learning for all
educators. Participant A, a school administrator from the smallest district, shared their district is
“pretty homogenous and uninformed about critical race theory, racial equity, and
institutionalized racism.” They believed professional development was necessary to address
75

trauma-informed practices while at the same time also addressing educational inequities. They
were hoping for a “progressive process of intervention and learning before it becomes punitive.”
In order to address the suspension rate, they recommended restorative justice training and
education specific to responsible online use and online bullying.
Another administrator from the same district, Participant B, shared that within their
district, educators have had access to ongoing professional development in large part due to an
active parent-teacher association that contributes significant funds. They shared, “I think that
much more than other districts I’ve seen, the conversation has been very robust around social-
emotional health and trauma and, you know, getting people help when they need it.”
Interestingly, they reflected on a need not voiced by other administrators during the recorded
interviews. They expressed a personal concern, “I think the expectation is for us to power
through.” Comparing educators to professionals in the medical field, such as doctors and
dentists, they reflected on the need for additional non-technical support. Participant B declared,
I don’t really know how else to address this for us because I think the public perception
that principals or district leaders needing any kind of social-emotional help would not be
viewed well. I think it’s very stigmatized. … I don’t think society is going to look kindly
on it.
Of note, three other participants shared specifically after the recorded interview that they
struggled with their own trauma histories.
Participant E contributed reflections on previous valuable professional development
while employed with another district out of state. While, at the beginning of the interview, they
shared that they believed the district was positively addressing the needs of maltreated children
76

and contributing to innovative practices, they ultimately ended up reflecting that there was
limited professional development in place to support traumatized children. They reflected,
I brought it up in my last district, and it’s making me realize that I haven’t really been
immersed in all of that training for a long time because I’m even trying to remember all
the components of that. It was really all eye-opening, and I think just such a great thing
for our teams to go through, but it kind of made me realize I need, we need, to get back
into that. Like, I need—we need—to really kind of have those conversations with our
staff, not just at the administrator level.
Participant E’s interview shared a similar trajectory to the other participants. The majority of
participants started out highlighting the strengths of their district or school specific to neglected
or abused children and ended up concluding the interview with recognizing the work was not
enough, and further professional development was needed.
Summary of Research Question 4 Findings
Overall, district and school administrators voiced confidence in their abilities to support
traumatized children. Three administers from the largest school district shared frustrations with
navigating a larger bureaucracy; however, they also spoke in high regard about their self-
examination to implement interventions. Perceptions of necessary resources were specific to
professional development in all three districts.

77

Chapter Five: Discussion
While there are many studies that have sought to understand the impact of trauma on
children and learning, there is limited research on the role of district and school administrators in
educating traumatized children. The purpose of this study was to analyze how district and school
administrators understand the impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in
the state of California. This study revealed what district and school administrators have learned
from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as it relates to understanding
how trauma affects learning, the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of trauma for
student health, and improving academic outcomes. Above all, this research study highlighted
best practices in the field of education, effectively implementing trauma-informed practices on
school campuses. The study was guided by the following four research questions:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability
to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student
achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators
developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized
children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
Findings
The significance of this study was to reveal what district and school administrators have
learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as it relates to
understanding how trauma affects learning, the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of
78

trauma for student health and improving academic outcomes. Additionally, this research study
highlighted trauma-informed best practices on school campuses. The study’s rationale was to
enhance the body of research on how district and school educational leaders understand how
trauma affects children’s ability to learn and self-regulate. Given district and school
administrators are responsible for school policy, interventions, and supports, they can influence
student outcomes. The findings from this study, intended to aid current research and literature,
also sought to understand the interventions or innovative practices developed by educational
leaders and understand how equipped district and school administrators are in supporting
students who have experienced trauma. Table 4 provides a summary of the key themes that
emerged for each research question.

79

Table 4
Key Themes
Research question Findings
How do district and school
administrators perceive
trauma affecting children’s
ability to self-regulate on
school campuses?
Participants were able to provide specific examples of
traumatic experiences, had an understanding of trauma,
and recognized it affects children’s ability to self-
regulate.
Consensus that behavior challenges were ubiquitous with
traumatized children
How do district and school
administrators perceive
trauma affecting student
achievement?
Administrators’ perceived trauma could negatively
influence student achievement.
Limited analysis as to how trauma can affect learning
What interventions or innovative
practices have district and
school administrators
developed to support students
who are impacted by
traumatic experiences?
Aligned in advocating for interventions or innovative
practices to support students affected by traumatic
experiences
All the participants were able to share current mental
health supports, Wraparound services, and academic
supports.
Participants recognized the need for additional research
and practical trauma-informed strategies and supports.
How equipped do district and
school administrators feel to
support traumatized children
and what resources are needed
to support them in this work?
Participants from the two smallest districts were optimistic
about their ability to improve outcomes for maltreated
children.
Participants from the largest district in the study agreed
that school district bureaucracy imposed limitations
that prohibited the implementation of intervention or
innovative practices.
Participants’ examination of necessary resources across all
three districts detailed the need for ongoing
professional development.

The findings of this study suggest that district and school educational leaders have an
understanding of how trauma affects children’s ability to learn and self-regulate. All of the
participants had an understanding of trauma and recognized that many students have had
traumatic experiences or are experiencing ongoing trauma. Aside from one participant, a district
80

administrator, all the administrators shared that they had personal experience teaching maltreated
students. Additionally, participants were able to provide specific examples of traumatic
experiences such as living in poverty, abuse or neglect, witnessing domestic violence, sexual
abuse, or the loss of a parent or caregiver. Participants had consensus that behavior challenges
were ubiquitous with traumatized children. Participant E summed up the unanimity when they
shared it was incumbent on district and school administrators to support teachers in
understanding that “all kids have some level of trauma.” Participants volunteered accountability
for teachers and administrators to create a learning environment for all children to have success.
Furthermore, participants were aware of the need for schools to explicitly teach and support
social and emotional learning.
These findings are supported by a growing body of contemporary research on the impact
of trauma and child development. Traumatized children are at risk for a regression in functioning
with the acquisition of developmental skills (Putnam, 2006), with significant psychological and
physical consequences (Ertan et al., 2020). According to van der Kolk (2014), “since emotional
regulation is the critical issue in managing the effects of trauma and neglect, it would make an
enormous difference if teachers, army sergeants, foster parents, and mental health professionals
were thoroughly schooled in emotional-regulation techniques” (p. 209). The ability to self-
regulate is an essential tool required for children in schools to access the curriculum and
socialize appropriately with peers. Additionally, traumatized children who experience difficulty
in their ability to self-regulate emotions, attention, and behavior (Pelco & Reed-Victor, 2007) are
more likely to receive punishment within the school setting (Fondren et al., 2020), behavior
referrals, and exclusionary discipline measures such as suspensions (Eckenrode et al., 1993;
Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). Furthermore, studies support that it is
81

incumbent on educators to create a positive, autonomy-supporting learning environment for all
children to thrive (Deci & Flaste, 1996).
A second finding from the study was consensus by district and school administrators that
trauma can negatively influence student achievement. Participants articulated that they
recognized children exposed to traumatic experiences are at risk for problems with academic
performance; however, there was limited analysis by the administrators as to how trauma can
affect learning. While the literature regarding how trauma can result in cognitive impairment,
including learning disabilities (Nemeroff, 2016), is expansive in scope, the study’s findings were
supported despite district and school administrators not articulating the details of how and why
student achievement can be impaired. The participants recognized that trauma could be
responsible for difficulties with attention, focus and learning.
A third finding from the study reinforces the need for interventions or innovative
practices for traumatized children. Exposure to trauma can impair a student’s academic and
social functioning (Perfect et al., 2016). All of the participants aligned in advocating for
interventions or innovative practices to support students affected by traumatic experiences and
were able to share current mental health supports, Wraparound services, and academic supports.
Recognizing the need for additional research and practical trauma-informed strategies and
supports, participants made connections to the practices they are currently supporting with a
consistent acknowledgment that much work remains to be done. The research regarding school-
related interventions is particularly important given trauma can have far-reaching and lifelong
implications. In particular, early intervention for children is critical, as preschool children
experience higher rates of trauma (Stegelin et al., 2020). Regarding the implementation of
interventions or innovative strategies, there was omnipresent support by the district and school
82

administrators for trauma-informed approaches in schools. In order to meet the needs of students
and support academic achievement, it is imperative that the effects of trauma-informed
interventions and programs are researched (Maynard et al., 2019).
When asked how equipped they feel to support traumatized children and what resources
are needed to support them in this work, all the participants reflected on their perceived
confidence and abilities to support maltreated children. While district and school leaders from
the two smallest districts were optimistic about their ability to improve outcomes for maltreated
children, participants from the largest district in the study agreed that school district bureaucracy
imposed limitations that prohibited the implementation of intervention or innovative practices.
Additionally, participants’ examination of necessary resources across all three districts detailed
the need for ongoing professional development. While the research regarding the implementation
of trauma-informed practices in smaller districts compared to larger districts is limited, the
study’s findings added to the literature. More research is needed regarding the adoption of
district-wide trauma-informed practices.
An ancillary finding of note, three participants shared after the recorded interview that
they struggled with their own trauma histories. Surprisingly, the participants shared intimate
details of childhood trauma that contributed to their decision-making when choosing a
profession. All three participants spoke about the desire to improve outcomes for maltreated
children given their traumatic experiences. The participants did not feel comfortable
incorporating their trauma histories within the interview for confidentiality reasons; however, it
could be reasoned that they were able to share vulnerabilities given I was unknown to them prior
to the interview and the guarantees of confidentiality afforded prior to the interviews and
afterward. When queried if the participants revealed their trauma histories with colleagues, they
83

all reflected that they were uncomfortable divulging in case it influenced their professional
credibility. The ancillary finding was supported by the literature, raising awareness that
educators, susceptible to compassion fatigue and stress, in turn, need help and support. This
unexpected outcome from the study warrants further research into professional development in
order to support educators with trauma histories and mental health needs working with students
exposed to trauma.
Implications for Practice
The study findings can support the efforts of district and school administrators to improve
learning outcomes for traumatized children. This study contributes to research regarding barriers
that create challenges for maltreated children in the classroom. Findings from this study suggest
implications for practice that will improve learning outcomes for all students. These
recommendations for practice are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations Rationale
Educators need an in-depth
understanding of how trauma
affects student achievement.
Providing a comprehensive and developmentally sensitive
understanding of educational, social, emotional, and
behavioral needs and supports for maltreated children
will build educator efficacy and improve student
outcomes.
District-wide adoption of an
integrated trauma-informed
framework to support
educators working with
traumatized children
Building a district-wide framework will effectively utilize
resources and warrant the implementation of research-
based best practices.
Ongoing collaboration,
professional learning, and
support
Increase educator expertise and, through collaboration,
build academic confidence to support all students.

84

How Trauma Affects Student Achievement
All the participants believed trauma negatively affected children’s ability to self-regulate.
The challenge presented by traumatic experience regarding self-regulation impacted children’s
ability to access their education. In addition, participants understood that traumatized children
often presented with maladaptive behaviors that impeded learning and achievement. Participants
also highlighted the need for curriculum for teaching social and emotional learning. The findings
highlight the importance of educating teachers, administrators, and all staff who work with
children about child development and functioning, brain development and functioning, ACEs,
and trauma-informed practices. In order to implement interventions or innovative practices to
support traumatized children, educators need a comprehensive and developmentally sensitive
understanding of educational, social, emotional and behavioral needs and supports for maltreated
children. Furthermore, the findings and literature call attention to the need for early
identification. According to the participants, educators recognized children based on behavioral
presentation and academic achievement. Prior to a decline in achievement and/or maladaptive
behaviors, further research in evidence-based prevention practices could improve student
outcomes.
Interventions or Innovative Practices to Support Traumatized Children
When asked about district and school interventions or innovative practices, all the
administrators were able to highlight specific approaches or actions implemented; however, none
of the participants was able to identify the interventions or practices as part of an integrated
framework to inform work with traumatized children. Two participants were able to highlight
that practices or interventions were part of a continuum of services in a three-tiered system of
behavioral supports. Participants found great value in district and school interventions, and all
85

the participants highlighted the need for further research and practices to support traumatized
children.
The recommendation for practice is the district-wide adoption of an integrated trauma-
informed framework implemented with fidelity. The framework would provide a comprehensive
and developmentally sensitive understanding of educational, social, emotional, and behavioral
needs and supports for maltreated children. For example, the adoption of Dr. Perry’s
neurosequential model in education as a way to educate all district and school staff that work
with traumatized children. Educators need an in-depth understanding of how trauma affects
student achievement, and a district-wide program will build educator efficacy and improve
student outcomes. Furthermore, implementation fidelity will be more efficient and improve the
program’s effectiveness.
Resources Needed to Promote Equitable Trauma-Informed Practices
A significant implication for practice is the importance of providing additional resources
for ongoing collaboration. All of the participants highlighted the need for professional
development. The impact of the global pandemic on teacher shortages, high turnover, and
burnout were factors in considering professional development. Continuous professional learning
and support is necessary to leverage workforce capacity and prioritize wellness and mental
health for educators. Professional development and collaboration for all staff working with
traumatized children, within a district and at individual school sites, can increase expertise and
build educator confidence to support all student achievement. While there are already significant
demands placed on district and school leaders, frontloading professional development and
affording opportunities for ongoing collaboration pertaining to student trauma and vicarious
trauma will provide educators the tools to improve student outcomes. Providing educators
86

consistent time allotted for collaboration would facilitate the implementation of a comprehensive
and developmentally sensitive understanding of educational, social, emotional, and behavioral
needs and supports for maltreated children and the district-wide adoption of an integrated
trauma-informed framework. Additionally, ongoing collaboration will improve the likelihood
that educators will work as multi-disciplinary teams and persevere in their efforts to improve
outcomes for all students, particularly students with ACEs.
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
Delimitations are the factors that were set in order to create a more manageable study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). A delimitation of this study is it included only district and school
leaders in California who held an administrative position for 2 years or more. Since the study
reviewed only district or site-level educators in three districts in California, it limited the
generalizability of the results to the state. In addition, delimitations were present in the time
allotted and the small sample of district-level educators self-reporting data. The delimitations of
the study were limited to three areas: the geographic region (California), the number of district
leaders surveyed and interviewed, and the number of district leaders with special education
experience.
Limitations are influences that the researcher cannot control (Creswell & Creswell,
2017). A significant limitation of this study is that interviews were conducted during a period of
tremendous upheaval due to the global pandemic that was placing significant strain on district
and school leaders. As such, district and school leaders may not be in a position to give
interviews their full attention. Another limitation involves the sensitive nature of childhood
trauma, and interviewees may be unwilling to discuss issues that trigger their own trauma
87

histories. Furthermore, district and school leaders may present a biased or inaccurate picture of
what student supports and strategies exist.
Recommendations for Future Research
This qualitative study analyzed how district and school administrators understand the
impact of trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California. I
interviewed nine district and school administrators from three districts in Southern California.
According to the Presidential Task Force on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in
Children and Adolescents (2008), the field of child and adolescent trauma and PTSD is relatively
young, although research has markedly increased over the past 4 decades. Given children were
considered resilient, there was little research or writing about trauma and children prior to 1980
(Perry & Szalavitz, 2017; van der Kolk, 2014). Contemporary research on effective treatments
for childhood trauma is at the forefront of educational policy and legislation. Given a
comprehensive literature review and findings from this study, the following are
recommendations for future research:
• Strengthen the research on understanding the cognitive, social, emotional, and
physiological impacts of trauma.
• Conduct further research as to how trauma affects child development and student
achievement.
• Expand the research on trauma-informed interventions or innovative practices.
• Conduct a study of trauma-informed training programs for educators.
• Conduct additional investigation into district and school site professional
development in order to build educator knowledge.
88

• Further explore the role of traumatic experiences on educators to assess how they are
being supported in their work.
Conclusion
By conservative estimates, about 40% of children in the United States will have at least
one traumatizing experience before they turn 18 (Perry & Szalavitz, 2017). Traumatic
experiences such as neglect, violence, racism, witnessing domestic abuse, serious illness, natural
disasters, and sexual abuse trauma can result in a host of trauma-related symptoms. Traumatic
experiences can affect the brains, minds, and bodies of children (van der Kolk, 2014). Common
manifestations of childhood trauma can result in a comorbidity of psychiatric disorders such as
depression, anxiety, addiction, substance use, eating disorders, and dissociative disorders (Brady
et al., 2000).
In 1968, Dr. Comer at Yale University’s Child Study Center developed the term “whole
child.” When trauma-informed strategies were developed and implemented to support children,
socially and emotionally, maladaptive behaviors dropped, and students’ academic performance
outpaced the national average (Abelson, 1974). The work at the center was the foundation for a
district-wide focus on social development in Connecticut and the launching of the New Haven
Social Development program. Psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer first introduced the
concept of emotional intelligence in 1990, and in 1995, Daniel Goleman received widespread
success in the mainstream media for his work, which popularized the idea. Over the following
decades, significant research has highlighted the need and effectiveness of social and emotional
strategies to support academic achievement. Without trauma-informed practices and
interventions, children, no longer considered immune to trauma exposure and the complex
effects of trauma, are at risk of long-term debilitating repercussions on their social, emotional,
89

and academic development. Modeling the work of the Child Study Center at Yale, educators can
improve student achievement by understanding the neurobiology of trauma and the most
effective ways of lessening the impact of trauma.
A key lesson of the administrator interviews was that children’s ability to self-regulate
can be compromised by trauma. Participants were aligned in their beliefs that creating an optimal
learning environment, with explicit teaching of social and emotional learning, was incumbent on
all educators. District and school administrators also demonstrated consensus with their
perception of how trauma can negatively influence student achievement. While there was an
understanding that trauma can affect learning, there was minimal knowledge as to how and why.
Overall, participants spoke in high regards as to their districts’ role in developing interventions
or innovative practices to support students impacted by traumatic experiences, while also
recognizing the need for additional research and trauma-informed strategies and supports. There
was a perceived disconnect between administrator confidence and their abilities to support
maltreated children.
Most importantly, district and school administrators have a direct impact on helping
traumatized children self-regulate and learn. They must have an understanding of the effects of
trauma on brain development and know how to help traumatized children heal and succeed in
school. Educational leaders can shift the mindset of all stakeholders to focus on children’s well-
being and mental health while also improving student outcomes by giving educators and children
the tools they need to understand and minimize the effects of trauma.

90

References
Abelson, W. D. (1974). Head start graduates in school: Studies in New Haven, Connecticut. In S.
Ryan (Ed.), A report on longitudinal evaluations of preschool programs: Vol. 1.
Longitudinal evaluations, (pp. 1–14). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
American Psychological Association. (2022). Trauma In APA dictionary of psychology.
Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://dictionary.apa.org/trauma
Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R.,
& Giles, W. H. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood. A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. European
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4
Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to
cognitive neuroscience. Academic Press.
http://sutlib2.sut.ac.th/sut_contents/H133142.pdf
Becerra-García, J. A. (2014). Childhood abuse and neurocognitive performance in adulthood: A
preliminary study of executive functioning in offenders. The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry & Psychology, 25(1), 113–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.873070
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
91

Brady, K. T., Killeen, T. K., Brewerton, T., & Lucerini, S. (2000). Comorbidity of psychiatric
disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(Suppl. 7),
22–32.
Brindle, R. C., Cribbet, M. R., Samuelsson, L. B., Gao, C., Frank, E., Krafty, R. T., Thayer, J. F.,
Buysse, D. J., & Hall, M. H. (2018). The relationship between childhood trauma and poor
sleep health in adulthood. Psychosomatic Medicine, 80(2), 200–207.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000542
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected
students: A new approach to healing and growth in the classroom. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 85(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000048
Bryant, D. J., Oo, M., & Damian, A. J. (2020). The rise of adverse childhood experiences during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and
Policy, 25(Suppl. 1), 193–194. https:/doi.org/10.1037/tra0000711
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016). Toward a blueprint
for trauma-informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 144–162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9166-8
Chapman, A. L., Gratz, K. L., & Brown, M. Z. (2006). Solving the puzzle of deliberate self-
harm: The experiential avoidance model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(3), 371–
394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.03.005
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
92

Clarke, F. (2007). So lonesome I could die: Nostalgia and debates over emotional control in the
Civil War north. Journal of Social History, 41(2), 253–282.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096479
Cloitre, M., Scarvalone, P., & Difede, J. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder, self- and
interpersonal dysfunction among sexually retraumatized women. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 10(3), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490100309
Coleman, J. A. (2016). Racial differences in posttraumatic stress disorder in military personnel:
Intergenerational transmission of trauma as a theoretical lens. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(6), 561–579.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2016.1157842
Cook, A., Blaustein, M., Spinazzola, J., & van der Kolk, B. (Eds.). (2003). Complex trauma in
children and adolescents. National Child Traumatic Stress Network.
https://www.cttntraumatraining.org/uploads/4/6/2/3/46231093/ct_white_paper-
ctwg_nctsn.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Crocq, M. A., & Crocq, L. (2000). From shell shock and war neurosis to posttraumatic stress
disorder: A history of psychotraumatology. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 2(1),
47–55. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2000.2.1/macrocq
Crosby, A. E., Cheltenham, M. P., & Sacks, J. J. (1999). Incidence of suicidal ideation and
behavior in the United States, 1994. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior, 29(2), 131–
140.
93

Danese, A., & Lewis, S. J. (2017). Psychoneuroimmunology of early-life stress: The hidden
wounds of childhood trauma? Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(1), 99–114.
https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.198
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving
school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Educating_Whole_Child_REPORT.pdf
Dean, E. T., Jr. (1997). Shook over Hell: Post-traumatic stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War.
Harvard University Press.
Deblinger, E., Mcleer, S. V., Atkins, M. S., Ralphe, D., & Foa, E. (1989). Post-traumatic stress
in sexually abused, physically abused, and nonabused children. Child Abuse & Neglect,
13(3), 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(89)90080-X
Deblinger, E., Pollio, E., & Neubauer, F. (2012). Treating Trauma-related symptoms in children
and adolescents. In J. G. Beck & D. M. Slone (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of traumatic
stress disorders (pp. 473–490). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399066.013.0033
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation.
Penguin.
Delima, J., & Vimpani, G. (2011). The neurobiological effects of childhood maltreatment: An
often overlooked narrative related to the long-term effects of early childhood trauma?
Family Matters, 89(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.717010661945019
94

De Young, A. C., Kenardy, J. A., & Cobham, V. E. (2011). Trauma in early childhood: A
neglected population. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(3), 231–250.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0094-3
Didi-Huberman, G. (2003). Invention of hysteria: Charcot and the photographic iconography of
the Salpêtrière. (A. Hartz, Trans.). MIT Press.
Dong, M., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T. J., Loo, C.
M., & Giles, W. H. (2004). The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse,
neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(7), 771–784.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.008
Douglas, T.-R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of Critical
Pedagogy, 5(1), 58–82.
Drescher, J., & Merlino, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). American psychiatry and homosexuality: An oral
history. Routledge.
Durrant, J, & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: Lessons from 20 years of
research. CMAJ, 184(12), 1373–1377. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101314
Dyregrov, A. (2004). Educational consequences of loss and trauma. Educational and Child
Psychology, 21(3), 77–84.
Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems
among abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.53
Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 14(8), 839–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014008004
95

Edleson, J. L., Gassman-Pines, J., & Hill, M. B. (2006). Defining child exposure to domestic
violence as neglect: Minnesota’s difficult experience. Social Work, 51(2), 167–174.
https:// doi.org/10.1093/sw/51.2.167
Edwards, V., Holden, G., Felitti, V., & Anda, R. (2003). Relationship between multiple forms of
childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: Results from
the adverse childhood experiences study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(8),
1453–1460. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1453
Engelhard, I. M., McNally, R. J., & van Schie, K. (2019). Retrieving and modifying traumatic
memories: Recent research relevant to three controversies. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 28(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418807728
Enoch, M.-A. (2011). The role of early life stress as a predictor for alcohol and drug dependence.
Psychopharmacology, 214(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00213-010-1916-6
Ertan, D., El-Hage, W., Thierrée, S., Javelot, H., & Hingray, C. (2020). COVID-19: Urgency for
distancing from domestic violence. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11(1),
Article 1800245. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1800245
Fantuzzo, J., & Mohr, W.K. (1999). Prevalence and effects of child exposure to domestic
violence. The Future of Children, 9(3), 21-32. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/419
Fantuzzo, J. W., Perlman, S. M., & Dobbins, E. K. (2011). Types and timing of child
maltreatment and early school success: A population-based investigation. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1404–1411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.010
Faust, D. G. (2009). This republic of suffering: Death and the American Civil War. Vintage.
96

Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Ruiz, D. (2008). Emotional intelligence in education. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(2), 421–436.
http://repositorio.ual.es/bitstream/handle/10835/538/Art_15_256_eng.pdf?sequence=1
Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Toward a new understanding of the costs of caring. In
B. H. Stamm (Ed.), Secondary traumatic stress: Self-care issues for clinicians,
researchers, and educators (pp. 3–28). The Sidran Press.
Figley, C. R., Ellis, A. E., Reuther, B. T., & Gold, S. N. (2017). The study of trauma: A
historical overview. In S. N. Gold (Ed.), APA handbook of trauma psychology:
Foundations in knowledge (pp. 1–11). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000019-001
Fondren, K., Lawson, M., Speidel, R., McDonnell, C. G., & Valentino, K. (2020). Buffering the
effects of childhood trauma within the school setting: A systematic review of trauma-
informed and trauma-responsive interventions among trauma-affected youth. Children
and Youth Services Review, 109, Article 104691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104691
Fortuna, L. R., Tolou-Shams, M., Robles-Ramamurthy, B., & Porche, M. V. (2020). Inequity
and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color in the United
States: The need for a trauma-informed social justice response. Psychological Trauma:
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(5), 443–445.
https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000889
Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (2004). Studies in hysteria. Penguin. (Original work published 1895).
Friedman, M. J. (2013). Finalizing PTSD in DSM-5: Getting here from there and where to go
next. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(5), 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21840
97

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2005). Corporal punishment and the growth trajectory of children’s
antisocial behavior. Child Maltreatment, 10(3), 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505277803
Heller, K. A. (Ed.). (1982). Placing children in special education: Equity through valid
educational practice. Final report. National Academy Press.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED217618.pdf
Identifying, preventing, and treating childhood trauma: Hearing before the House Oversight and
Reform Committee, 116
th
Cong. (2019).
https://www.cdc.gov/washington/testimony/2019/t20190711.htm
Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 C.F.R § 300.104 (2004).
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.104
Ingram, J., Maciejewski, G., & Hand, C. J. (2020). Changes in diet, sleep, and physical activity
are associated with differences in negative mood during COVID-19 lockdown.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.588604
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Optimizing human resources: A case for
preventative health and stress management. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 5–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90037-6
Jones, E., & Wessely, S. (2005). Shell shock to PTSD: Military psychiatry from 1900 to the Gulf
War. Psychology Press.
Kantor, G. K., & Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: When does domestic
violence equate with parental failure to protect? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4),
338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250834
98

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
Kolaitis, G. (2017). Trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents.
European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(Suppl. 4), Article 1351198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1351198
Kortering, L. J., & Blackorby, J. (1992). High school dropout and students identified with
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 24–32.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23887097
Kuijpers, P. M. J. C. (2020). Soldiers’ heart revisited. European Heart Journal, 41(11), 1152–
1156. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa101
Kupchik, A. (2014). The school-to-prison pipeline: Rhetoric and reality. In F. E. Zimring & D. S.
Tanenhaus (Eds.), Choosing the future for American juvenile justice (pp. 94–119). NYU
Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479816873.003.0005
Larzelere, R. E. (1986). Moderate spanking: Model or deterrent of children’s aggression in the
family? Journal of Family Violence, 1(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00977030
Lecy, N., & Osteen, P. (2022). The effects of childhood trauma on college completion. Research
in Higher Education, 63(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09677-9
Legislative Analyst’s Office [of California]. (2019). Overview of special education in California.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/4110/overview-spec-ed-110619.pdf
Lippard, E. T. C., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2020). The devastating clinical consequences of child
abuse and neglect: increased disease vulnerability and poor treatment response in mood
99

disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(1), 20–36.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010020
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Conceptualizing practitioner-scholarship for
educational leadership research and practice. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 12(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116668525
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research.
SAGE.
London Family Court Clinic. (2005). The Margaret McCain Lecture Series inaugural lecture by
Bruce D. Perry, MD PhD. https://docplayer.net/16650424-Maltreatment-and-the-
developing-child.html
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the
lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6): 434-
445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639.
Majer, M., Nater, U. M., Lin, J.-M. S., Capuron, L., & Reeves, W. C. (2010). Association of
childhood trauma with cognitive function in healthy adults: a pilot study. BMC
Neurology, 10, Article 61. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2377-10-61
Maxwell, L., Peele, H., Superville, D. R., & Sawchuck, S. (2022). School shootings in 2020:
How many and where. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-
shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2020/01
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Does styles research have useful implications for education practice?
Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 319–320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.016.
100

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://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1018
Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (Eds.). (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for
discussion and analysis. Wiley.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Micale, M. S. (1989). Hysteria and its historiography: A review of past and present writings (I).
History of Science, 27(3), 223–261, https://doi.org/10.1177/007327538902700301
Miller, C. (2021). Social challenges of kids with learning problems. Child Mind Institute.
https://childmind.org/article/social-challenges-kids-learning-problems/
Moskowitz, A., Heinimaa, M., & van der Hart, O. (2018). Defining psychosis, trauma, and
dissociation: Historical and contemporary conceptions. In A. Moskowitz, M. J. Dorahy &
Ingo Schäfer (Eds.), Psychosis, trauma and dissociation: Evolving perspectives on severe
psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 7–29). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118585948.ch1
Mueser, K. T., & Taub, J. (2008). Trauma and PTSD among adolescents with severe emotional
disorders involved in multiple service systems. Psychiatric Services, 59(6), 627–634.
https://doi.org/full/10.1176/ps.2008.59.6.627
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education 2019.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). Significant disproportionality in special
education: Current trends and Actions for Impact. https://www.ncld.org/wp-
101

content/uploads/2020/10/2020-NCLD-Disproportionality_Trends-and-Actions-for-
Impact_FINAL-1.pdf
Nemeroff, C. B. (2016). Paradise lost: The neurobiological and clinical consequences of child
abuse and neglect. Neuron, 89(5), 892–909.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.019.
Nishith, P., Mechanic, M. B., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Prior interpersonal trauma: The
contribution to current PTSD symptoms in female rape victims. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 109(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.1.20
Norton, M. S., Webb, D. L., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency:
New responsibilities, new leadership. Allyn and Bacon.
Osofsky, J. D. (2003). Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence and child
maltreatment: Implications for preventions and intervention. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 6(3), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024958332093
Patrick, S. W., Henkhaus, L. E., Zickafoose, J. S., Lovell, K., Halvorson, A., Loch, S., Letterie,
M., & Davis, M. M. (2020). Well-being of parents and children during the COVID-19
pandemic: A national survey. Pediatrics, 146(4). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-
016824
Pelco, L. E., & Reed-Victor, E. (2007). Self-regulation and learning-related social skills:
Intervention ideas for elementary school students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 51(3), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.36-
42
Perfect, M. M., Turley, M. R., Carlson, J. S., Yohanna, J., & Saint Gilles, M. P. (2016). School-
related outcomes of traumatic event exposure and traumatic stress symptoms in students:
102

A systematic review of research from 1990 to 2015. School Mental Health, 8(1), 7–43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9175-2
Perrin, S., Smith, P., & Yule, W. (2000). Practitioner review: The assessment and treatment of
post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41(3), 277–289.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00612
Perry, B. D. (2004). Maltreatment and the developing child: How early childhood experience
shapes child and culture [Annotated lecture]. The Centre for Children and Families in the
Justice System. http://www.lfcc.on.ca/mccain/perry.pdf
Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood
trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and “use‐dependent” development of the brain:
How “states” become “traits”. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271–291.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(199524)16:4%3C271::AID-
IMHJ2280160404%3E3.0.CO;2-B
Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2017). The boy who was raised as a dog: And other stories from a
child psychiatrist’s notebook—What traumatized children can teach us about loss, love,
and healing. Hachette.
Pizarro, J., Silver, R. C., & Prause, J. (2006). Physical and mental health costs of traumatic war
experiences among Civil War veterans. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(2), 193–200.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.2.193
Presidential Task Force on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in Children and
Adolescents. (2008). Update for Mental Health Professionals. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/children-trauma-update
103

Putnam, F. W. (2006). The impact of trauma on child development. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal, 57(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.2006.tb00110.x
Putnam, F. W., & Trickett, P. K. (1993). Child sexual abuse: A model for chronic trauma.
Psychiatry, 56(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1993.11024623
Shonk, S. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk for academic
and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.3
Sidpra, J., Abomeli, D., Hameed, B., Baker, J., & Mankad, K. (2021). Rise in the incidence of
abusive head trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Disease in Childhood,
106(3), Article e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319872
Spataro, J., Mullen, P. E., Burgess, P. M., Wells, D. L., & Moss, S. A. (2004). Impact of child
sexual abuse on mental health: Prospective study in males and females. The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 185(5), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.5.416
Spertus, I. L., Yehuda, R., Wong, C. M., Halligan, S., & Seremetis, S. V. (2003). Childhood
emotional abuse and neglect as predictors of psychological and physical symptoms in
women presenting to a primary care practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(11), 1247–1258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.05.001
Stegelin, D., Leggett, C., Ricketts, D., Bryant, M., Peterson, C., & Holzner, A. (2020). Trauma-
informed preschool education in public school classrooms: Responding to suspension,
expulsion, and mental health issues of young children. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 23(2),
9–24.
104

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent
antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151(8),
761–767. https://doi.org 10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170450011002
Streeck-Fischer, A., & van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). Down will come baby, cradle and all:
Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of chronic trauma on child development.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(6), 903–918.
https://doi.org/10.1080/000486700265
Tallerico, M., & Blount, J. M. (2004). Women and the superintendency: Insights from theory and
history. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 633–662.
Tejada-Gallardo, C., Blasco-Belled, A., Torrelles-Nadal, C., & Alsinet, C. (2020). Effects of
school-based multicomponent positive psychology interventions on well-being and
distress in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 49(10), 1943–1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01289-9
Trickey, D., Siddaway, A. P., Meiser-Stedman, R., Serpell, L., & Field, A. P. (2012). A meta-
analysis of risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents.
Clinical Psychology Review, 32(2), 122–138.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2021). The state of the global education crisis: A path to
recovery. https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-global-education-crisis
U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children. (n.d.).
Forms of punishment. United Nations.
https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/content/forms-punishment
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Supporting child and student social, emotional,
behavioral, and mental health needs.
105

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/students/supporting-child-student-social-emotional-
behavioral-mental-health.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/cm01.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Child Maltreatment 2015.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2015
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2022). Reducing suspension and expulsion
practices in early childhood settings. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/ecd/child-health-
development/reducing-suspension-and-expulsion-practices
van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of
trauma. Penguin.
van der Kolk, B. (2016). Commentary: The devastating effects of ignoring child maltreatment in
psychiatry–a commentary on Teicher and Samson 2016. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 57(3), 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12540
van der Kolk, B., Pynoos, R. S., Cicchetti, D., Cloitre, M., D’Andrea, W., Ford, J. D., & Teicher,
M. (2009). Proposal to include a developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for children
and adolescents in DSM-V [Unpublished manuscript].
http://www.cttntraumatraining.org/uploads/4/6/2/3/46231093/dsm-v_proposal-
dtd_taskforce.pdf
Villarreal, V. (2015). State-level variability of educational outcomes of students with emotional
disturbance. Exceptionality, 23(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.986610
Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools and communities.
Children & Schools, 35(2), 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdt007
106

Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., & Keane, T. M. (1995). Military trauma. In J. R. Freedy & E. E.
Hobfoll (Eds.), Traumatic stress (pp. 103–128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4899-1076-9_5
Weber, D. A., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). Clinical perspectives on neurobiological effects of
psychological trauma. Neuropsychology Review, 14, 115–129.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NERV.0000028082.13778.14
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
Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (1998). Children exposed to partner violence. In J. L. Jasinski & L.
M. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research
(pp. 73–112). SAGE.
Woodrow Cox, J., Rich, S., Chiu, A., Thacker, H., Chong, L., Muyskens, J., & Ulmanu, M.
(2022). The Washington Post’s database of school shootings. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/school-shootings-database/
World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health [Meeting report].
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241545615
107

Appendix A: Educational Leader Interview Cover Sheet and Protocol
Interview cover sheet:

Name of researcher:

Name of interviewee:

Position of interviewee:

Date of interview:

District:

Interviewee email
address:

Interview start time:

Interview end time:

Protocol
Introduction
I want to thank you for meeting with me today. I really appreciate your time and I look
forward to learning from you. Our interview today will provide me with valuable information
that is essential to understanding the districts or school leadership role in understanding how
trauma affects learning, the most effective ways of minimizing the impact of trauma, and
improving student outcomes. The ultimate goal of this research study is to reveal what
administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making responsibilities as
it relates to understanding how trauma affects student outcomes and best practices in the field of
education, specifically implementing trauma-informed practices on school campuses.
All information will be strictly confidential, and your responses will be private. I can guarantee
that all documentation from this interview will be secure and not shared with anyone.
108

Additionally, you can withdraw your consent at any time and for any reason. Consent can be
revoked verbally and/or in writing.
Please know you can take a break at any time and let me know if you feel discomfited or
self-conscious at any time. These are not easy topics to discuss and again I really appreciate your
willingness to engage in this interview.
1. Can you tell me briefly about your path to arriving at your current role?
2. What is your understanding of trauma and its effect on student outcomes?
3. How has your thinking about trauma and the effects of trauma on students changed
since the beginning of the pandemic, if at all? Can you give an example of specific
actions taken? (Additional probing questions)
a. Has it changed how you think about the supports and interventions needed?
b. Are there any new practices or supports that have been put in place that are
showing promise to address student needs?
4. How are district resources allocated to support students who are impacted by
traumatic experiences? Additional probing question: Where do you see the districts
strengths/limitations?
5. Where do you see districts going in the future addressing trauma and the impact on
student achievement?
6. Do you communicate with others in your district about your thinking about trauma,
the effects of trauma and specific actions the district is taking?
7. I’d like to interview 2–3 educational leaders from your district. Can you recommend
who I should speak with?
109

Closing
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. You have provided a wealth of
valuable information and I appreciate your candor. Is there anything you would like to add that I
might have neglected to ask about during the course of this interview? Do you have any
questions that I can answer at this time? Thank you again!

110

Appendix B: Email Request for an Interview
Dear ___________,

________________ recommended I contact you regarding doctoral research. As a doctoral
student at USC, I am conducting research to analyze how district administrators understand the
impact of trauma on student outcomes. Please see attached research summary. Given your role, I
would greatly appreciate the opportunity to schedule an interview with you via phone or video
conferencing. The interview consists of seven interview questions and will take on average 30–
45 minutes. Your responses will be anonymous. Please let me know if you would like to
participate in this research.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Michelle
111

Appendix C: Research Summary for Interview Participants
Exposure to trauma in early childhood such as witnessing domestic violence, sexual
abuse, neglect or violence can have long-term, wide-ranging effects on student outcomes.
Traumatic events can also include natural disasters, pediatric medical procedures or exposure to
war. Recognized and documented trauma symptoms in children such as depression, substance
abuse and suicidal ideation are present in low and high performing schools. Historically, children
were considered to be resilient and less likely to be impacted by traumatic events (Perry &
Szalavitz, 2017). Contemporary research has established that children can be impacted by trauma
and the negative physical and psychological outcomes can impair child development.
The purpose of this study is to analyze how district leaders understand the impact of
trauma on student outcomes in K–12 school districts in the state of California. This study reveals
what district administrators have learned from their experiences and their decision-making
responsibilities as it relates to understanding how trauma affects learning, the most effective
ways of minimizing the impact of trauma for student health, and improving academic outcomes.
Above all, this research study highlights best practices in the field of education, effectively
implementing trauma-informed practices on school campuses.

112

Appendix D: Email Thank You for an Interview
Dear ___________,

I sincerely appreciate you granting my doctoral research the benefit of your perspective and
wisdom. Thank you, as a fellow academic, but on a more personal level, thank you for making
the time during such a demanding period for educational administrators! I am truly grateful.

Sincerely,
Michelle

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Understanding and treating childhood trauma is at the forefront of educational changes. Emotional dysregulation, behavioral and cognitive problems are some of the effects of trauma, affecting children’s ability to access grade-level curriculum. This study explored what is currently known about trauma, the effects of trauma on brain development, and how to help traumatized children heal and succeed in school. Educational leaders from three Southern California school districts were included in the research. By studying the impact of trauma on children, educational leaders may better protect all students’ rights to a high-quality education. Four research questions guided this study:
1. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting children’s ability to self-regulate on school campuses?
2. How do district and school administrators perceive trauma affecting student achievement?
3. What interventions or innovative practices have district and school administrators developed to support students who are impacted by traumatic experiences?
4. How equipped do district and school administrators feel to support traumatized children and what resources are needed to support them in this work?
The research methodology for this study was a qualitative design. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed through interviews which included descriptions of the research study, topic, and purpose. Interviews were conducted with participants who have been in a district or school leadership role for at least 2 years.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling of genocide: discovering the role of the intergenerational transmission of trauma and resilience among women in university leadership positions who are descendants of...

PDF

Black male school administrators perceptions of the recruitment process into leadership at Chicago public schools

PDF

An analysis of the impact of Montessori education on Black children

PDF

Understanding the needs of primary school teachers operating in international crisis response in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia…

PDF

Exploring the role of early trauma on academic performance: qualitative study

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The fourth industrial superintendent: transforming public school systems beyond 21st-century mindsets

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Principal implementation of Education Code 215: pupil and student suicide prevention policies in southern California public middle schools

PDF

Student mental health and wellness in K-12 high-performing school districts in Northern California: best practices for educational leaders

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

PDF

The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts

PDF

Student mental health and wellness in K-12 high performing school districts in Southern California: best practices for educational leaders

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Kerrigan, Michelle Therese (author)

Core Title The role of district and school leaders in educating traumatized children in California public schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 01/15/2023

Defense Date 07/06/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag and depression.,complex trauma,OAI-PMH Harvest,Stress,suicidal ideation,superintendent and superintendency

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Lazer, Deborah (committee member)

Creator Email mkerriga@usc.edu,mtkerrigan@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112716010

Unique identifier UC112716010

Identifier etd-KerriganMi-11415.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KerriganMi-11415

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Kerrigan, Michelle Therese

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230118-usctheses-batch-1001 (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