Trauma-Informed Theory – The NeuroPacific Classroom

Which of these scenes represents your early childhood classroom: a serene, sparkling, cognitive wheelhouse, as presented in commercials and school promotion videos? Or a sordid, wild classroom, depicted to color your newsfeed? The beauty of the former and the injustices of the latter certainly exist, and they must be showcased or exposed. Those representations, however, do not portray school for the typical child. The typical child moves through school environments that are designed to be ideal, but that are punctuated with behavior distractions. In this academic environment, he receives both warmth and criticism from others. Then he interacts similarly to everyone in his sphere of influence. Children who have more adverse experiences, peer interactions, and adult criticism can find it a struggle to succeed both socially and academically. This often manifests in preschool and intensifies into adulthood.^10, ² Fortunately, research is beginning to document that an empathetic, rather than a punitive or exclusionary, approach may have more merit. ⁹ The empathy is grounded in an effort to understand the perspective of the child, and to adapt methods accordingly—leading to interventions informed by trauma-informed care and by cognitive science.

Trauma-Informed Care, which has its roots in treatment for combat-related stress of the Vietnam War and domestic violence assistance in the 1970s and 1980s, evolved during the 1990s to inform mental health treatment.⁷ Cognitive science, which includes psychology and other interdisciplinary influences, increasingly relies on neuroscience and computer analytics to document the results of adverse events on the brain. When paired with educational policy or pedagogy, an integration that has been evolving only over the past two decades, is known as Trauma-Informed Theory. It has become and important component of teacher education, but often is only supplied as an option for professional development to veteran teachers . As such, it competes with other offerings like how to develop literacy, how to develop STEM techniques, and managing ADHD in the classroom. Yet, evidence-based strategies can be an important tool for bringing peace into classrooms and into the lives of children. Trauma-informed care goes beyond coaching novice diplomacy among preschools and applying the science of psychology to child development. Instead, it concentrates on understanding, and adapting to, adverse experiences that color a child’s perspective.

The adverse experiences that contribute to trauma are significant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses the term Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) to describe 9 “potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood (0-17 years).”^4, ⁵ The events can be relatively commonplace, such as being subjected to economic hardship (25%) or having an absent parent (36%). They also include a variety of less-widely experienced events, such as personal abuse, witnessing violence, mental illness, and substance abuse (3% to 9%), and experiencing racial or ethnic discrimination (4%). Although the percentages may seem low, in a nation of 23 million children under age 5³, 3% equates to about 690,000 children. Additional influences on behavior, such as coping with ADHD and autism are not generally factored in. They may occur concurrently, or add another 3% to the struggling population.³ In a single classroom of 25 children, that means approximately 2 children are struggling—more in areas plagued by crime and poverty.

Educators may not even know that these events are relevant to a child’s behavior in the classroom because shame, stigma, or a general desire for privacy shrouds the information. ACEs, however, have been linked with an extensive list of long-term negative outcomes for children, including emotional problems, behavioral problems, hindered academic progress, substance abuse, and anti-social behaviors leading to public violence and incarceration.^6, ⁹ Although even one adverse childhood experience can be insidious, some children experience a disproportionate number of trauma-inducing events. About 11% of non-Hispanic white children experience three or more ACEs, and the number rises to 17% for children of color.³ Depending on the severity and frequency of experience, ACEs can significantly alter the way children perceive and respond to interpersonal interactions, which makes early intervention critical.

A Sample Intervention: NYC Community Schools

Scholar Icon There are several resources available to educators to teach trauma-informed theory for older children, but significantly fewer resources that specifically examine the effects in early childhood.⁸ ¹¹ This disparity represents an area of study for future scholars. Nevertheless, we can still learn from the experiences with older children, and begin to assess how the knowledge can be applied to preschool situations.

One of the most recently published studies, published in Children & Schools, examined 953 middle-school students in two high-stress communities between 2015 and 2017.¹ New York City officials worked with Wediko Children’s Services (and others) to apply trauma-informed theory to the families of children enrolled in their Community Schools. The schools worked to understand how trauma moderated the behavior of children in their care, and employed Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) programs, which they expected to be both efficient and immediate. The study relied on a cross-assessment of quantitative measures using a Social Skills Improvement Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) questionnaire and the ACE Questionnaire. They then evaluated the whole program by qualitatively measuring interview responses among articulate participants.

Seventy seven percent of the students in the study self-reported at least one ACE, compared with the national parent-reported figure of 46%. Eighteen percent self-reported four or more ACEs (high) and 37% reported two or three (moderate). The most prevalent ACE in the group was witnessing neighborhood violence (44% compared with 4% nationally) and divorce/separation of a parent (40% compared with 25% nationally). Socioeconomic hardship was in third place, at 14%, compared to 26% nationwide).

At the conclusion of the study, the researchers found that the interventions increased attendance, but they affected social skills or problem behaviors only moderately among most children. (In fact, problem behaviors increased two years in a row for high ACE students.) However, for children who had a lower number of ACEs, there was the interesting observation that students became more sensitive to the fact that external forces play a role in their peer’s behavior—that is, it promoted an empathetic perspective. The children also expressed an increased sense of support for their needs.

The authors reported, “The negative outcomes for students with higher trauma point to the clear need for schools to identify and provide a higher level of support for those who are struggling the most with previous trauma, including evidence-based interventions.” In this case, they recommend cognitive-behavioral interventions in schools and stressed the need for trauma-informed care in community schools and the need for universal trauma screening.

Where to Find Interventions

Another study, by Shantel D. Crosby (2015) explores the staggering number of internal and external factors that influence a child’s behavior.⁶ It also offers a description of cognitive-behavioral interventions and their results. The author relies on the analogy of ecological systems (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem) to examine trauma-informed educational practices for the 25% of children who have been exposed to intense early-life events such as emotional or sexual abuse, or neighborhood violence. Notably, this translates into 90% of youth who end up in residential juvenile justice facilities.

[NS10] The key takeaways from the ecological perspective are that children live in a:

Microsystem: with direct interactions between teacher and student, related to learning.
Mesosystem: with interactions between the teacher and community professionals (mental health professionals, for example) and caregivers; Interactions that support prosocial behavior between the student and peers.
Exosystem: with trauma-sensitive strategies that influence practices, policies, and procedures within the school, and within the community. This includes professional development that offers trauma-sensitive strategies to school personnel. The policies should maintain student expectations, maintain student accountability, and provide procedures for rapidly deescalating student behaviors from negative to positive—all while remaining sensitive to the student’s emotions and circumstances.
Macrosystem: with programs that provide resources, so neighborhoods and schools have access to universal social and emotional learning programs (SEL). The author references The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). These programs also help teachers to recognize their own biases and to access strategies for managing them.

Crosby examined three interventions:

The Multiplying Connections Model (These tasks are summarized by the acronym CAPPD: Calm, Attuned, Present, Predictable, and Don’t (let children’s emotions escalate your own emotions)
The Flexible Framework
Compassionate Teaching

The key practices from these programs are identified as Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS), which stress these key themes:

Be observant, allow nuanced changes in the student to provide insight about behavior shifts and individual needs.
Support student experiences in communication with peers.
Offer opportunities to build positive relationships, to offset previous and existing negative relationships
Maintain control of emotions (avoid retaliation for behavior); be vigilant about emotional presence and positive engagement with students.
Maintain high expectations of students yet be realistic.
Create opportunities for students to play an active role in the class.
Encourage children to participate in extracurricular activities.

Another method known as the token economy, uses reward tokens for individual and group behavior and is widely accepted for general classroom use. However, a recent review of academic literature suggests that the method is applied inconsistently and perhaps without consideration of the complete theory (Ivy, Meindl, Overley, & Robson, 2017).

Additional Reading See the references for this page.