trauma_chaptbychapt_thesis

Running head: Trauma -informed Training- A Framework For Teaching In Poverty

Trauma -informed Training: A Framework for Teaching in Poverty

Brandy Williams

Concordia University Portland

Trauma -informed Training- A Framework for Teaching in Poverty2

Abstract

Abstract goes here.


Introduction

There are a myriad of issues affecting education today. Those issues range from

curriculum and standards, to development of positive school cultures. It seems that as the

years increase, so do the elements that play a role in how students are educated. One such

issue, which has proven pervasive and complicated, is poverty. Stromquist (2001)

described poverty on two levels: a) specific to an area or region and then wide reaching

and b) -continually progressive throughout the world. Indeed, poverty is one of the most

widely known concepts in all the world. For this reason, just about every industry seeks

to study the concept of poverty, as it relates to the human capital within that industry.

Education is no different. According to Ansoms (2012) poverty is studied in very limited

and often singularly defined scopes. In essence then, the idea of poverty has been

simplified, but hardly ever examined in its multi- faceted dimensions (Ansoms, 2012).

Many of the contributors to the poverty in education research, have missed some crucial

elements of the conversation. Primarily, poverty is more than a temporary, self- inflicted

wound. Poverty, as defined by Chan and Rueda (1979) is the systematic, continual and

stress induced state of being without basic means of life, liberty and happiness. This

definition alone is far more encompassing than most education theorists have comprised.

What cannot be forgotten, is that the Education industry, specifically in America, is

affected by many bureaucracies, diverse populations and micro issues. As Rogalsky

(2009) noted, it is dangerous and irresponsible to focus on changing those who are

already impoverished, instead of focusing on the systems and environment that allows

poverty to thrive. This thesis seeks to find a best practice in working with students in

poverty. Research is limited, but focused on the idea of poverty as trauma, and the use of


Trauma -informed initiative and practices in teaching new practices and ideas to

educators.

Theoretical Framework

Rogalsky (2009) purported poverty as more than an individual's struggle with

choice and opportunity. As far reaching and long- lasting as poverty is, it cannot be

framed as one person's problem, across a community (Rogalsky, 2009). Poverty then,

must be seen as a community issue, with implications for the overall health and well

being of the individuals within that community system. As noted by Hobbs (1982) how

an issue is defined, determines the solutions that are gathered to solve the problem.

Therefore, poverty, cannot be confined to a form of individual deviance, any longer. As

Cassiman (2006) suggested, framing poverty as deviance serves the function of

regulating the status quo, and promoting the values of the dominant and majority

population. Instead, poverty should be seen as the systematic, continual stressor, that

limits the functioning and access to equity, for the economically disadvantaged (Chan &

Rueda, 1979). Wadsworth et al. (2008) explained poverty as, "...detrimental to one's

psychological, physical and educational health" (p. 156). In other words, poverty,

especially persistent and generational poverty, is traumatic for individuals (Wadsworth et

al., 2008).

Statement of Problem

With this idea in mind, poverty cannot be aided through current models. Current

theories and ideas about poverty only see and treat poverty by labeling it as deviance, and

an individual's sole responsibility alone. A Trauma -informed practice will benefit the

fight against poverty in education. Maikoetter (2011) suggested Trauma -informed


practices teach educators how to respond, in the moment, to a student's perception of their

reality. In doing this, the student who is constantly transitioning between past trauma and

determining if the present is more pain or help, can be aided to restructure reality and

cope with their situation better (Maikoetter, 2011). For the child living in poverty, their

constant reality is a reminder of the lack in: opportunities, development and, but the

increase of life stressors, that make learning difficult (Rogalsky, 2009). Further, a Trauma

-informed practice will reframe the conversation about poverty, to focus on the systemic

similarities of all students, instead of the singular dispositions of individual, cultural

subpopulations (Maikoetter, 2011; Wrigley, 2012).

Search Criteria

This thesis will utilize a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Primary

sources will be yielded through search terms, poverty, poverty in education, trauma -

informed initiatives, poverty in education and poverty as trauma. Secondary sources will

be found through a review of the primary source 'Discussion' sections for further reading

and considerations. Many of these sub topics focus on some level of poverty, educational

best practices and trauma -informed training throughout care and social service facilities.

Some of this paper will feature expert ideas like those of Ruby Payne, but only for the

sake of comparison to the trauma -informed practices being studied. Much of the research

will be recent, as trauma -informed training in education is a relatively new concept.

However, some research will be 10 or more years old, as it still resonates in current

practices. Lastly, some professional Web Sites will be utilized as they hold seminal

information on the study of trauma -informed initiatives and effective measurement tools.


Chapter 2

Introduction

Poverty research has limited its scope for decades. Many theorists who have

contributed to the body of knowledge involving poverty, and specifically poverty within

the education arena, have drawn limited connections to the systemic underpinnings and

causality of poverty. Instead, those theorists have continued the status quo and made

poverty an individual, deviant behavior (Rogalsky, 2009). This chapter will

chronologically outline how poverty has been defined and studied, to evaluate gaps in the

collective understanding.

Restatement of the Problem

Much of poverty research has done little to advance the collective understanding

of, not only how to conceptualize and understand it, but also, how to best treat poverty, in

any organization (Wrigley, 2012). Further, while poverty has been shown to limit the

developmental capacities of individuals, very little has been done to classify poverty as

trauma and treat it accordingly. Classifying poverty as a trauma, and treating it through

trauma -informed initiatives, has the potential to greatly increase the collective

understanding of the issues, to affect change (Maikoetter, 2011).

Historical Context

The ideas of Chan and Rueda (1979) insisted access to education, was anything

but equal. The education system was becoming a mechanism for continuing poverty,

through a narrative that blamed the victims (Chan & Rueda, 1979). Hobbs (1982)


explained that issue framing is just as important as issue solving. In this way, theorists are

able to find viable solutions when they can effectively conceptualize a problem. Lewis

(1985) searched for a connection between education and poverty promotion with the in-

depth study of how standards in the Reagan administration did nothing more than further

the poverty gap. It was found that education standards' reform, and poverty reduction

were intrinsically linked, in a contra-positive relationship (Lewis, 1985). In essence, the

more initiatives created, the higher poverty rates and the education gap, increased. When

these initiatives failed to provide the intended outcome, theorists began blaming the

family structure.

McLanahan (1985) studied the concept of family structure as the cause of

generational poverty and found that, individuals are not the cause of the trauma faced by

being economically disadvantaged. Instead, the system around the deprivation of basic

needs, lends itself more to the trauma felt by the individuals (McLanahan, 1985). Family

structure and individual choice were not the causes of continued poverty (McLanahan,

1985). Theorists still persisted in blaming the individual for poverty, and largely ignored

the continual trauma that impoverished individuals felt.

Despite researchers' findings that poverty was much more complex than

historically believed, studies continued to focus on individual constructs and causes.

Foster and Seltzer (1986) pushed the envelope some by recognizing that poverty was a

psychological detriment to ability and development. Still, their study focused on framing

poverty as an individual's determination to succeed or fail, given some favorable

conditions with family structure and opportunities (Foster & Seltzer, 1986).


Contemporary Ideas

Poverty rates hit an all time high during the 1980s, and continued to climb and be

ever pervasive during the 1990s, so researchers continued to hunt for causes and

treatment models (Johnson & Oliver, 1991). Schools were still struggling with failing test

scores and high instances of drop- out recidivism among its most impoverished students

(Johnson & Oliver, 1991). The resurgence of education as a means to tackling poverty

gained popularity, but continued to address the issue at an individual level, without

regard for what education could do to aid poverty, systemically (Johnson & Oliver,

1991). Pritchard (1993) purported the very study of poverty in education, was

convoluting the issue. Pritchard (1993) noted with each textbook, which sought to "teach

about poverty", the popular beliefs and conservative views that framed the issue and

benefited the larger class groups, were being promoted more and more (p. 42). In this

sense, academia needed to change its views of how poverty is defined, in order to treat it.

Pritchard (1993)'s criticisms of text may have sparked a trend of viewing poverty

systems, versus focusing on the individuals within poverty.

Chomsky (1994) studied the idea of classism as a method of furthering poverty by

explaining it to be the most silent, but more prevalent, in the education arena. Monroe et

al.. (2007) explained poverty as a systemic problem, that forces individuals who live

within it to cope with their daily exposure to trauma. The latent causes of this trauma are

disavowed learning and difficulties in academia (Gorski, 2008). Gorski (2008) suggested

the conservative atmosphere surrounding education, both inside and outside of the

classroom, has been the reason that systemic factors are only glazed over in poverty

discussions.


Rogalsky (2009) maintained the constant push to ignore systemic issues relating

to poverty, exposed the individuals who live within its confines to more trauma and harm.

In essence, the brain cannot mitigate learning, and coping at the same time (Wadsworth et

al., 2008). Maikoetter (2011) explained that poverty is the most basic and pervasive

trauma that a child can face, but there is little to no research supporting initiatives that

treat poverty through a trauma -informed lens.

Trauma -informed Initiatives

There is limited research in the field of trauma -informed programming. O'Neil,

Guenette & Kitchenham (2010) concluded the trauma -informed treatment of children

who have often lived in impoverished and trauma laden homes, helps educators

understand that simple is not the answer to educating them. Instead, social concerns are

the primary issue, as students often face impulse control mechanisms that are

unavoidable, but disruptive to the traditional learning environment (O'Neil, Guenette, &

Kitchenham, 2010). Dworznik and Grubb (2007) realized the impact that trauma -

informed training had on preparing the mindsets of individuals, let alone aiding them in

coping with trauma, by explaining it as beneficial for any field that is involved with

handling trauma or trauma victims.

Conclusion

Based on current trends within the field of education, more can be done to affect

change and educate students living within poverty. Current theories do not adequately

define, conceptualize, or focus on models that evaluate and help the whole child. Instead,


current models often rely on 'changing' the child to suit the education world. This practice

fosters more oppressive forces and isolation of the individual, instead of attempting to

study and change the environment that has created the issue (Gorski, 2008). This thesis

will bring a more balanced approach to the education arena by addresses systemic and

psychology aspects of poverty with research based models.


Chapter 3

Introduction

Contemporary theorists attempt to make distinctions between generational

poverty and poverty, as if it disappears and dissipates with the changing times. This

notion, according to Chan and Rueda (1979) is false because poverty is the continual

denial of basic needs. Therefore, distinctions like generational poverty or conditional

poverty are unnecessary, and detract from solving the real issues that poverty creates.

Further, it is equally distracting to continue to blame victims for their situations. Many

theories about the causality of poverty, relate to the familial structure that victims are

reared from. Gibbs (1984) argued this notion by claiming the family structures of the

most impoverished people, causes their situation and lack of achievement. There was no

consideration for possible systematic causes.

Under these ideas, victims are their own worst enemy. But, what does that kind of

logic do to the overall problem and issue? The answer is often times, nothing. Foster and

Seltzer (1986) explained that parenting, is not always a determining factor for a student's

individual success or failure. They extended this argument to say, despite poverty, family

structure, does not overpower opportunity and follow- through (Foster & Seltzer, 1986).

To that end, it is of the utmost importance to find an effective model for teaching

students, especially early in their development. As explained by Haberman (1991) the

essence of teaching students in poverty is largely overlooked and under studied. Even

books that are supposed to teacher teachers the art of educating, do not handle poverty

effectively (Pritchard, 1993).


There is a silver lining though. Many theorists are beginning to pay serious

attention to systemic and environmental constraints that make poverty possible.

Wadsworth et al. (2008) explained this trend is due, largely, to the notion that poverty

leads to developmental problems in students; not just their ability to cope as had been

previously speculated. Further, education is a basic, human right and should be afforded,

equally, to all individuals who seek it (Dhillon, 2011). That leaves a gaping need for

effective models that mitigate poverty and promote positive, social change.

Trauma -informed initiatives is a model that encompasses the best practices for

teaching students in poverty. Bryant- Davis (2007) cautioned against attempting to solve

a problem, without taking care of the social and emotional needs attached to that

problem. Doing this seems to bandage a gaping wound, as "...healing of psyches

necessitates the dismantling and healing of the source of societal wounds of

oppression..." (p. 142). Trauma -informed initiatives allows for this type of healing to

occur. As noted by O'Neill, Guenette and Kitchenham (2010) trauma -informed

initiatives are the mechanisms to aid care givers who are involved with trauma, because

they teach caregivers how to empathize, and help students copes. Becker, Greenwald, and

Mitchell (2011) explained the need for this training because students were able to find

successes and hope, after receiving treatment through the model.

Classical Definitions and Misnomers Involving Poverty

Chan and Rueda (1979) defined poverty as a continual denial of basic needs.

Although this definition can be beneficial, it does not account for the entirety of poverty.

Much of the information needed to adequately address poverty, is lost because the


definitions and frameworks utilized are inadequate. While Chan and Rueda's (1979)

study focused on students who faced both physical and mental disabilities, and those who

were among classically defined low socio- economic statuses, there are limitations in

applying their study to this Thesis. The definition is fitting as it draws attention to those

individually who most often are faced with the ills associated with poverty. Still, their

notion of poverty is affected by the strain of rendering and working with the most needy

of our society, and this can worsen poverty.

Hobbs (1982) cautioned against improperly framing a topic because the

information garnered will also be improper and inadequate. Perhaps this is the reason that

so many theorists have haggled about how to define poverty. Additionally, this rationale

can account for some of the reason that poverty has been, inadequately addressed,

historically. The definition applied to a topic or issue, does indeed affect how researchers

and theorists find solutions for the topic or issue; and in some cases, the lack thereof

involving solutions (Hobbs, 1982).

Hagenaars and Vos (1988) insisted that the definition of poverty is situational and

determined by the available data and needs of the community who defines it. Again, this

definition can partly explain the lack of available resources to address poverty. After all,

the Hagenaars and Vos (1988) study was not a study of individuals in America. Their

study focused on England, and limits the applicability to this Thesis. There are staunch

cultural and governmental differences between American and England, that can account

for issues in cross -applying the findings of Hagenaars and Vos (1988). What this study

does show, is the common likelihood of theorists to frame arguments about poverty the

same.


For the most part, theorists have focused their definitions on the characteristics

and traits of the individuals living within poverty. It is believed that understanding the

qualities of a person who is impoverished, will somehow lead to a better understanding of

poverty as a whole. In fact, that is what most textbooks and classrooms have informed

students of for decades (Pritchard, 1993). Unfortunately, current definitions and

frameworks for understanding poverty, have not been effective in positively impacting it.

Poverty remains, "...the biggest challenge[s] human beings face in the twenty- first

century" (Agostino, 2007, p. 226). It should be noted that Agostino (2007) utilized

respondents from Latin America. The majority of this paper focuses on the concerns of

American life, though, the findings of this research have global implications. To that

degree, Latin American studies can still provide relevant information for this Thesis.

Additionally, purely American doctrines are not necessary to qualify the terms of an issue

that has global implications, and remains pervasive throughout the world.

With all of the information that is known about poverty, the impoverished remain

in much of the same living conditions. In truth, very little has been learned about poverty

and how to treat it because the definitions and frameworks utilized are focused on

improper measurements and concepts of the issue. Individuals who encompass various

regions of the world, face many of the same problems associated with poverty (Agostino,

2007). These individuals are often from difference socio -economic backgrounds,

cultures and age groups, but their experiences, in relation to poverty, are quite similar.

Their shared, poverty experiences speak more to the systematic implications of poverty,

than individual qualities and choices (Bryant- Davis, 2007). Still, this insight is very

seldom recognized and thus, keeps poverty as a pervasive issue in many of the world's


cultures (Bryant- Davis, 2007). As Ansoms (2012) argued, the very study of poverty has

become so watered down, one should question why it is continuously studied.

While this notion of misnomers in the study of poverty is widespread, Ansoms

(2012) research findings are limited to respondents from the African continent- most

specifically Rwanda. For this reason, there are several implications that limit the

reproducible nature of findings for this Thesis. In short, Africa has a multitude of bilateral

elements that play a role in their culture, poverty and the pervasive nature of their issues.

Among those elements is the difference in governing, throughout the continent. Africa's

government limits the amount and type of research that can be done. Therefore, findings

are marred by possible geographical and political biases. Secondly, research done in

Africa, is done on some of the most problematic conditions in the world. As is the case

with almost all studied conditions in Africa, the economic situation surrounding poverty,

is far worse than most other places in the world. So, statistical significance among

African respondents may not equate to statistical significance among American

respondents. What this study does provide though, is theoretical approaches that, if used

and deemed successful among the worse instances of poverty in the world, could provide

amazing results in American life. Likewise, the theories utilized in the Ansoms (2012)

study are not exclusively used to study African life, conditions, problems and culture.

Many of the theories presented in Ansoms (2012), can also be found in contemporary,

American studies. Some of those theories include, Game theory and Economic

Displacement theory.

Poverty Serves the Status Quo


With so many researchers and theorists' conjectures calling for an overhaul of

how poverty is defined and framed, why have so many theorists continued their studies

on the individual victims of poverty? McLanahan (1985) asserted the need to find a

scapegoat with rising poverty rates, and very few explanations. From this need arose a

belief that individual familial structures could account for poverty rates, as a lack of two-

parent homes led to income deprivation and denial of basic needs (McLanahan, 1985).

What research found, though, was not consistent with the family structure belief. Instead,

research found that, systematically yes, female single- parent homes had higher instances

of high school dropouts, but this was due to employment, and had very little affect on the

instances of poverty found (McLanahan, 1985). Specifically, while the children of single-

parent homes were at higher instances of dropping out of high school, they found gainful

employment, and contributed to the family more frequently (McLanahan, 1985).

Additionally, the type of single- parent home found, varied the instances and

levels of poverty- if the family was impoverished at all (McLanahan, 1985). Thus, there

were some instances of single- parent, male headed households, that were thriving and

living outside of poverty (McLanahan, 1985). The same concluded that, systemic

influences accounted for poverty far more than individual choices and structures. The

only thing, as noted by McLanahan (1985), the single- parent household rationale

provided was more convolution to the issue of poverty, while demonizing many minority

families. This was done because the instances of single- parent households were found to

be, significantly larger and more widely reported, in minority respondents.

There are some limitations of the McLanahan (1985) study, which has

implications for this Thesis. The most common limitation of the McLanahan (1985) study


is the time that has elapsed since it was conducted. Despite this criticism, the findings of

McLanahan (1985) still apply today because very little has been done to the ways in

which poverty is studied and framed. Additionally, current, American statistics report

high instances of female- headed, single- parent households. The single- parent rationale

is also utilized today (Rogalsky, 2009; Walkey & Cox, 2013). Another notable limitation

is the population sampling used for this study. Many of the participants in the

McLanahan (1985) study were found in urbanized areas of Chicago, but had moved from

several locales around the United States. Researchers took two samples: one from a

Census Bureau Database, and another from a representative sampling of children from

the original group. The representative sampling presents some limitations because it

focuses only on the children who faced the same issues of their families, not on

representatives or new communities who could attest to different background, that spoke

to the shared experience of poverty within their new communities. The study does

provide valuable information about historical poverty framing and definitions. It is also

aides this Thesis in providing empirical data that contradicts historical beliefs that are still

called upon today. Then too, the McLanahan (1985) study calls for more systematic

studies of poverty.

Chomsky (1994) discussed the prevalence of hiding systemic causes for poverty,

by explaining that the education arena presents the largest examples of inequity along

social and political boundaries. Chomsky (1994) also noted that the education field does

the least to help solve poverty. Chomsky (1994) believed that education is utilized to

blind the masses from true causes of poverty, because education is the one constant

among those who are impoverished and those who are wealthy. Based on Chomsky


(1994)'s argument, education is a great vehicle for distracting those who could redefine

poverty to include conversations about systemic causes, and eliminate the instances of

tailored conversations about poverty, that do little more than reaffirm commonly held

beliefs. These commonly held beliefs continue to keep children as the highest population

of those facing poverty, and those who have the least ability to change their situations

(Rank & Hirschl, 1999). After all, poverty remains a problem of both global magnitude,

with individual regions struggling in silence (Stromquist, 2001).

Although Rank and Hirschl (1999) raise the question- what is considered by most,

a valid concern, their research sampling is limited in scope. Rank and Hirschl (1999) used

the PSID, -which studied families, annually, for a period of 25 years and included the

children of those families when they moved out to begin new homes. While this type of

study provides long- term, longitudinal data, it is limited to respondent bias because the

experiences and conditions of those children, who make up newer sectors of the study,

are largely affected by the original respondents. Further, the PSID is a limited survey

since it is based on poverty calculations that are used by the Federal government, but

have remained the same since 1965 (Eberstadt, 2006). Despite limitations, the Rank and

Hirschl (1999) study is beneficial to this Thesis because the PSID is both a highly reliable

and academically acceptable, quantitative measure, that has been widely used in most

studied on poverty to date. Therefore, the findings of the study provide key insights into

the transformations of poverty, and the needs that remain.

Cassiman (2006) framed the argument best by stating, the war on poverty, "...is a

war on those who are impoverished...seeking to demonize and alienate them from the

larger society" (pp. 53- 54). The majority class, those who have traditionally held


positions of power and privilege, have the most to gain from limiting the scope of

poverty. This notion is furthered when statistical data involving the so- called, -'War on

Poverty'- is assessed. As reported by Eberstadt (2006), "...unemployment rates are

conversely related to poverty, in that as the unemployment rises, poverty decreases; and

as anti- poverty spending and education rise, so does poverty..." (p. 30). How else can

such a trend be explained, other than the majority cultures are plotting a war on the

wrong measures and issues. Poverty is not being aided by a definition that has changed

very little since 1965 (Eberstadt, 2006). Poverty will not change if it is not framed and

defined correctly.

Eberstadt (2006) focused his study on the previously collected data of other

researchers. While each of the data sets that Eberstadt (2006) analyzed were from reliable

measures, those data sets were used for a multitude of other studies, and present some

minor difficulties in cross -applying them to this Thesis. After all, there is bias in using a

set of data that was garnered from a different research question, over a similar topic. But,

the findings may still apply to this Thesis because the conclusions reached are still

applicable. The Federal government still utilizes the same, basic formulas in calculating

poverty indexes, and those were the formulas used for each data set of the Eberstadt

(2006) study. So what can be done to avoid promoting the status quo?

Education presents a unique set of challenges in the war on poverty. As the

education system is charged with making changes in the lives of those most affected by

poverty, it does nothing more than, "...reproduce the disparities in social economic

class..." (Yeskel, 2008, p. 1). This leads those who are impoverished to further blame

themselves, their choices and their failed attempts at change on their situations, because


they have been taught not to question the system (Yeskel, 2008). In essence then, the

cycle of poverty becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy with those who are the most

impoverished, lacking opportunities to find better means, but continually struggling

through the woes of being impoverished (Rogalsky, 2009).

Poverty and Development

Children a negatively affected more and more, through mal-adaptation and a lack

of psychological development, the longer they remain in poverty (Chan & Rueda, 1979).

Foster and Seltzer (1986) insisted the realities of the urban ghetto, which is the most

prevalent environment for the most impoverished of a given society, are damaging to the

development of children. Rank and Hirschl (1999) recognized that children make up the

largest population of those affected by poverty. This means, children who have the least

likelihood of changing their own decisions and actions, are those hardest hit by poverty.

These 'hits' are more encompassing than their inability to obtain basic means of survival.

As noted above, this conclusion may be a result of studying children who learned the

same coping mechanisms as their parents. As such, there may be more than systematic

constraints at play. Rather, the lack in development is more of a behavioral issue, than

simply a result of poverty alone. The affect of poverty is still harsh and undeniable.

As purported by Wadsworth et al., (2008), "...poverty is "...detrimental to one's

psychological, physical and educational health" (p. 156). Children who live in poverty,

are anatomically devoid of the ability to function in the education setting. They often find

coping mechanisms that are counter- productive and debilitating to the structure and

process of schooling (Wadsworth et al., 2008).


The Wadsworth et al. (2008) study provides necessary insight about the

development of children who live in poverty. The sampling does have limitations though.

According to Wadsworth et al., (2008) participants were chosen through representative

sampling, from a program designed to study families who were economically

impoverished. The study included participant self- reports on ethnicity and income

measures (Wadsworth et al., 2008). Both of these measures present the potential for

biases. In the case of respondents reporting's on ethnicity, researchers used the ethnicity

of the parent, to mark ethnicities for children who failed to give their own race. This

could affect the population sample's representative nature if parents have children with

difference ethnicities from their own, as could be the case with bi and multi- racial

children. Additionally, surveys that focus on respondents giving incomes, have been

shown to reveal inaccurate data. As a whole the Wadsworth et al., (2008), study

instruments were statistically reliable and provided valuable information about poverty

and development. The sample was found to be representative of the population, despite

the deficiencies noted in calculating the ethnicity of children (Wadsworth et al., 2008).

The study provided information that confirms why some children of poverty struggle in

the education arena. O'Neil, Guenette and Kitchenham (2010) also explored the

difficulties of student development and receiving an education. They concluded that

attachment or the lack thereof in students, significantly contributes to a lack of ability to

perform and achieve success in schools. Educators who are charged with making changes

in the lives of those who face poverty, are equally as ill- equipped as their students, to

cope and maneuver change in their school settings (O' Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham,

2010; Walkey & Cox, 2013).


A Change Must Come: Poverty is a Trauma

How poverty is defined and framed, must change. There are very few theorists

who claim poverty as trauma, despite evidence that there is a strong causal link to the

same affects of other traumas, when children live in poverty. As noted previously, the

way in which an issue is framed and defined, determines the amount and types of

solutions derived for it (Hobbs, 1982). This claim alone should be enough to call for a

challenge to the current systems in place for defining and framing the issue of poverty.

More than that, poverty must be seen as trauma because of its affects on the development

and overall health of those who live within it.

Cassiman (2006) explained that the current modes of handling poverty are not

causing change because they do not effectively address the issues involved. Poverty

cannot see change, until it is recognized as trauma, and then a call to treat that trauma can

be made (Cassiman, 2006). Healing and change can only happen, after a problem's nature

is recognized and accepted. Changing the way that policy and theory views poverty can

create the recognition and acceptance necessary (Cassiman, 2006). More so, poverty is

trauma, and should be seen as such, because it causes the individual who it effects, to lose

the ability to develop normally (Wadsworth et al., 2008.). This is a classically understood

indicator of trauma (Wadsworth et al., 2008).

Gorski (2008) explained that poverty is trauma, because it evokes an emotional

response to the condition. This occurs because, as most classical definitions understand,

poverty consists of a lack in basic needs. Individuals have emotional responses to

situations since they have an abundance of emotions, and a lack of other means to


respond to -those situations (Rogalsky, 2009). In the education arena, not seeing trauma

as poverty can mean, not seeing the individual for their whole self.

Trauma -informed Initiatives

Haberman (1991) may have begun the conversation about trauma -informed

practice, without realizing. Haberman (1991) was concerned with the so called,

"...Pedagogy of Poverty which informed teachers to expect less and teach less..." (p. 290).

This process was not working in the 90s. Haberman (1991) insisted that teachers change

their approach to educating, and focus on reaching the whole child, instead of rote skills

and practice. The idea of teaching the whole child- is the foundation of trauma -informed

practice.

Trauma, as noted previously, affects the individual living in it. What most

educators do not realize though, is that working with students who live through trauma,

also affects them, significantly. Thompson (1995) explained the affects of working with

trauma victims in her research. Thompson (1995) insisted her work with trauma caused

her to face latent psychological affects that were unintended, but also unavoidable.

Mitigating those affects are another foundation of trauma -informed practice.

So what is trauma -informed practice? According to Jennings (2004) a trauma -

informed service and practice is a philosophy of service that allows for safe interaction

between the trauma laden individual, and the treatment he or she receives. The

philosophy focuses on understanding the trauma and the individual, separately, so to

avoid re- traumatization (Jennings, 2004). In this case, trauma -informed care is a kind of

service model that reaches the whole individual, and recognizes and understands that he


or she is more than their history, by creating new relationships and bonds with that person

(Jennings, 2004).

The trauma -informed practice model grew out of necessity within the Mental

Health field. Most of the care that is provided under these models, occurs with persons of

extreme mental deficiency, child abuse and violence, seeking to receive psychological

help with their issues. While this Thesis is not solely looking at those within the Mental

Health field, this model can provide great benefits, if used in the Education field. Some of

those immense benefits involve the rebuilding of positive relationships and bonds, and

understanding and respecting the entire individual.

Dworznik and Grubbs (2007) expounded on the idea of treating the whole

individual through trauma -informed practices, by explaining there are greater benefits

that come with the use of trauma -informed models. Dworznik and Grubbs (2007)

asserted many individuals who are faced with working with those most affected by

poverty, also become victims to the poverty themselves. Through their study, Dworznik

and Grubbs (2007) concluded trauma -informed practices are best, not only for reaching

those who face poverty, but also for preparing the practioners who will service victims.

Most studies over trauma -informed practice models conquer with the findings of

Dworznik and Grubbs (2007), despite the study's limitations. For the sake of continuity, it

must be explained that Dworznik and Grubbs (2007) focused their study on upper level,

college, Journalism majors who were predominantly female. Their findings, though

backed by other studies, cannot fully, and equivocally be used in this Thesis, because the

focus is mainly on educating students within the K-12 arena, not solely, college students.


The Dworznik and Grubbs (2007) study does showcase reliable data that utilized both

qualitative and quantitative measures to showcase benefits in trauma -informed practice.

Ko, Ford and Berkowitz (2008) stated, "Schools have long been identified as an

ideal entry point for access to mental health services for children" (p. 389). They further

noted, however, that most school- based programs do not screen for or provide access to

trauma care services, for students or care providers within the school (Ko, Ford, &

Berkowitz, 2008). This matters because children who have experienced trauma, -are at a

disadvantage in the classroom. O'Neil, Guenette, and Kitchenham (2010) concluded

caring for child who have been victimized by trauma is challenging by feasible.

In the classroom, students who have faced trauma can best be reached through a

trauma -informed approach that builds new attachments, relationships and bonds; and

teaches students through those relationships, how to cope and use new skills to alleviate

the effects of trauma (O'Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham, 2010). Further, educators who

teach the victims of trauma- must recognize and treat their latent effects like empathy

dramatization and the potential for burn-out (O'Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham, 2010).

Still, consistency in the trauma -informed model usage is necessary to truly effect

of positive social change. As noted by Hummer et al. (2010) models that are currently

being utilized vary in their approach, and thusly, vary in their outcomes. What is

necessary for all models to be successful, is a method of to diagnose trauma victims,

regular visits and check-ups to prevent re-traumatizing victims, a focus on relationship

building and empowerment training for families (Hummer et al., 2010). Becker,

Greenwald and Mitchell (2011) conquered with Hummer et al. (2010)'s sentiments in

their study about trauma -informed care.


Becker, Greenwald, and Mitchell (2011) suggested trauma -informed care to be

best for treating individuals with any level of trauma, due to the nature of diagnostics,

relationship building and training received by care providers. Those results only add to

the growing body of research over trauma -informed practices, but must also be taken

with a grain of salt as it relates to this Thesis. For one, the Becker, Greenwald, and

Mitchell (2011) study involved a spectrum of behavioral difficulties, not just trauma and

loss. Secondly, the study was predominantly Latino and barely represented a statistically

significant cadre of Caucasian respondents (Becker, Greenwald, & Mitchell, 2011).

Furthermore, the study was conducted by only one team, in one locale (Becker,

Greenwald, & Mitchell, 2011). So, there could be issues with reproducing this study's

findings. Despite these barriers to applicability, the study further promotes the common

knowledge surrounding trauma -informed care, and produced statistically significant

benefits for all cultures, who faced all behavioral difficulties (Becker, Greenwald, &

Mitchell, 2011). What this says is, the trauma -informed model may be universally

beneficial to the education arena. In general, trauma -informed practices gives educators a

toolkit to use, that focuses on educating the whole child (Maikoetter, 2011). This toolkit

also teaches the educator to safeguard themselves from trauma (Collins et al., 2011).

Developing the toolkit is an area of growth, still needed in the field of trauma -

informed practice. Bowie (2013) noted that a practice can safely be regarded as trauma -

informed if it includes five, basic principles. Those principles include, "...safety,

trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment...at all phases of treatment:

contact, physical setting, relationship and activity...while all members of the treatment

community, responders and consumers, attest to all elements listed" (Bowie, 2013, pp.


82- 83). This can be a tall order, as universally understanding and attesting to conditions

is often challenging, if not impossible to attain. Still, there can be some give and take in

identifying trauma -informed care. Specifically, within the Education field, trauma -

informed practice should, begin early, and be revisited often (Walkey & Cox, 2013). Care

providers and educators should create plans that diagnose and refer students for the

treatment of trauma when necessary (Walkey & Cox, 2013). Those same care providers

must work to build relationships and bonds, despite the pull back or rejection that

students who have been victims of trauma display, and they must treat that child

separately from their trauma (Walkey & Cox, 2013).

Walkey and Cox (2013) explains treating victims of trauma separately from their

trauma as not demonizing the student for their learned coping skills or rejection to the

education system, but by accepting those coping skills and still working with the student,

in spite of them. Additionally, Walkey and Cox (2013) explained a trauma -informed

practice will utilize,"... the CAPPD principles of care..." (p. 124).

Based on Walkey and Cox (2013)'s explanation, CAPPD principles include:

Calm: Keep students focused and calm

Attuned: Watch for non- verbal, body language cues that denote the stress level of

the child.

Present: Be focused on the child you are with and remember that mistrust is based

on neglect of needs. Not focusing on the needs of the child present, re- victimizes

them.

Predictable: Provide a consistent, structured environment to help ease the

frustration of the unknown for a trauma victim.


Don't allow the emotions of the child to escalate your own: Be the driving force

and create, new, less emotional, coping skills. (p. 124).

Conclusion

Poverty will continue to be the most pervasive issue in our world (Ansoms, 2012).

For many theorists, the solution for poverty is an elusive one because the issue is

inadequately framed. Goodkind et al., (2012) noted that, when representing poverty, we

are trying to make sense of that which cannot be deduced to merely logical constructs.

Both academic and non academic barriers to change exist for schools (Mendenhall et al.,

2013). Still, it is the responsibility of the school, to provide the best level of care for the

students under its charge. Trauma -informed practice teachers students and educators/care

providers to navigate emotions, trust, and coping skills towards safety, and freedom from

re- traumatization (Walkey & Cox, 2013). There are no simple answers to solving

poverty. They best that can be hoped for, is an adequate model that addresses the best

interest of the students involved. To date, trauma -informed practices gives educators that

model.


Chapter 4

Analysis of Findings

There are no exact or absolute answers when it comes to education. Instead,

research shows the most useful and beneficial concepts to bring forth positive change in

education. The present review of literature showcases the applicability of trauma -

informed care. Rogalsky (2009) noted school systems are tasked with leveling the

playing field for the poorest of individuals. The trauma -informed care models, currently

in practice, have many facets that have yet to be studied and verified across multiple

validity tests (Richardson et al., 2012). This does not mean that trauma -informed

practices are not research based. Instead, the actual practice models vary so significantly,

that no one measurement tool has been created with reproducible tests for the

effectiveness of each model (Richardson et al., 2012).

Findings also show that, despite the effectiveness and validity being potentially

unreliable, the models in place have made significant strides in the lives of those served.

As explained by Bowie (2013) the trauma laden [child] needs adequate coping skills,

relationships, and trust in order to thrive. Trauma -informed practices give these skills to

those who need them most (Bowie, 2013).

Discussion

Gorski (2008) explained children in poverty are ill -served through current models

because they serve only to push forth the status quo, and further oppressive messages.

While no two impoverished people are alike, they do share some similarities as a

subpopulation. Among those similarities is the need to be celebrated and encouraged, not

torn down or belittled by those who are supposed to help them (Gorski, 2008). This


cannot happen under current frameworks, which only seek to teach children in poverty

through middle class ideals (Rogalsky, 2009).

In the same vein, the impoverished need advocates who understand their needs

and are willing to invest in them. School communities that are trauma -informed gain

insights and a toolkit that will offer support, strategies and connectedness that helps the

traumatized to overcome (O'Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham, 2010). Maikoetter (2011)

suggested the disassociation of children in poverty is the most dangerous element of their

trauma, that is aided through trauma -informed care. So, while there is still work to be

done in the fields of trauma -informed care and education, there is promise for the future.

Recommendations

Current methodologies do not celebrate and support the full embodiment of

students in poverty. The frameworks employed in education only further the status quo,

and make students deviant, despite systematic occurrences that create a lack of

opportunities and success for them (Cassiman, 2006). It is not enough to change

occurrences of re- traumatization. Frameworks that are to cause positive social change,

must also make an impact on the lives of those affected by poverty, and help them to heal

(Bryant- Davis, 2007).

Children in poverty deserve better systems, that will value their lives, including

the parts affected by trauma. Current models for teaching students who are impoverished

are wholly inadequate. As Gorski (2008) recalled, current models and frameworks for

teaching students in poverty only further oppressive ideals and practices. Children in

poverty do not succeed in spite of themselves, they succeed because they are capable


(Rogalsky, 2009). To this end, the education system must employ trainings, teachings and

practice models that incorporate and are founded in trauma -informed care initiatives.

Trauma -informed practices will not only aide the students affected by poverty, but they

will also aide educators, and provide them with a toolkit and protection from empathy

traumatization (O'Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham, 2010).

Trauma -informed care works best, when there is buy -in, and support from the

school community (O'Neil, Guenette, & Kitchenham, 2010). This type of support

requires building a culture of care, facilitating trust and relationship building, and

recognizing that the community is an ever evolving and learning one (Walkey & Cox,

2013). Trauma -informed care retrains nature reactions and helps to eliminate harmful

biases (Walkey & Cox, 2013).

Suggestions for Further Research

The idea of trauma -informed care is not entirely new, but still in its infancy

stages. There is much to be learned about care models and their benefits. Walkey and

Cox (2013) argued that trauma -informed care provides a best practice model that schools

would do well to adopt. The CAPPD model shows the great promise for educators in that

it helps them to understand the theory and practices involved (Walkey & Cox, 2013).

Still, school systems are often reluctant to add programming that isn't backed by science

and research. As noted by Sabitino et al. (2013), Response to Intervention (RTI), the

federally recognized planning of school's to handle the needs of their students, requires

that school implement research -based practices backed by science.


To that end, it is necessary to study more trauma -informed models, collect data

on CAPPD programming and usage, and find a measurement tool that is both, valid and

reliable, to test the efficiency of trauma -informed care (Richardson et al., 2012).

Additionally, further demographic studies are needed to measure the instances of trauma-

related health concerns both before and after the implementation of trauma -informed

care models.

References

Agostino, A. (2007). Poverty, education, and work: Some introductory thoughts.

Convergence, 40, 225- 229.

Ansoms, A. (2012). Negotiating on poverty: A participatory poverty assessment

simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 44(4), 586- 601.

Becker, J., Greenwald, R., & Mitchell, C. (2011). Trauma -informed treatment for

disenfranchised urban children and youth: An open trial. Child Adolescence and

Social Work Journal, 28, 257- 272.

Bowie, V. (2013). Trauma -informed care. Youth Studies Australia, 32(4), 81- 83.

Bryant- Davis, T. (2007). Healing requires recognition: The case for race- based

traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 135- 143.

Cassiman, S.A. (2006). Of witches, welfare queens, and the disaster named poverty: The

search for a counter- narrative. Journal of Poverty, 10(4), 51-66.

Chan, K.S., and Rueda, R. (1979). Poverty and culture in education: Separate but equal.

Exceptional Children, 45(7), 422- 431.

Chomsky, N. (1994). The prosperous few and the restless many. Berkley, CA: Odonian

Press.


Collins, K.S., Strieder, F.H., DePanfilis, D., Tabor, M., Freeman, P.A.M.C., Linde, L., &

Greenberg, P. (2011). Trauma adapted family connections: Reducing

developmental and complex trauma symptomatology to prevent child abuse and

neglect. Child Welfare, 90(6), 29- 47.

Dhillon, P. (2010). The role of education in freedom from poverty as a human right.

Education Philosophy and Theory, 43(3), 249- 259.

Dworznik, G. and Grubb, M. (2007, Summer). Preparing for the worst: Making a case for

trauma training in the journalism classroom. Journalism & Mass Communication

Educator, 190- 210.

Eberstadt, N. (2006). The mismeasure of poverty. Policy Review, 138, 19- 51.

Foster, W. and Seltzer, A. (1986). Portrayal of individual excellence in the urban ghetto.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 579- 582.

Gibbs, J. (1984). Black adolescents and youth: An endangered species. American Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 6- 21.

Goodkind, J.R., Hess, J.M., Gorman, B, & Parker, D.P. (2012). "We're still in a struggle":

Dine resilience, survival, historical trauma, and healing. Qualitative Health

Research, 22(8), 1019- 1036.

Gorski, P.C. (2008). Peddling poverty for profit: Elements of oppression in Ruby Payne's

framework. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41(1), 130- 148.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta

Kappan, 74(4), 290- 294.

Hagenaars, A, & Vos, K. (1988). The definition and measurement of poverty. The

Journal of Human Resources, 23(2), 211- 221.


Hummer, V.L., Dollard, N., Robst, J., & Armstrong, M.I. (2010). Innovations in

implementation of trauma -informed care practices in youth residential treatment:

A curriculum for organizational change. Child Welfare, 89(2), 79- 95.

Hobbs, N. (1982). The troubling and troubled child. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Jennings, A. (2004). Models for developing trauma -informed service systems and

organizations: Children. In Models for developing trauma -informed behavioral

health systems and trauma specific services: An update to the 2004 report.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.

Johnson, J. and Oliver, M. (1991). Urban poverty and social welfare policy in the United

States: An undergraduate research/training programme. The Journal of

Geography in Higher Education, 15(1), 25- 35.

Ko, S.J, Kassam- Adams, N., Wilson, C., Ford, J.D., Berkowitz, S.J., 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.

Lewis, A.C. (1985). Young and poor in America. The Phi Delta Kappan, 67(4), 251- 252.

Maikoetter, M. (2011). From intuition to science: Re -ed and trauma -informed care.

Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19(4), 18-22.

McLanahan, S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American

Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 873- 901.

Mendenhall, A.N., Iachini, A., Anderson- Butcher, D. (2013). Exploring stake holder

perceptions of facilitators and barriers to implementation of an expended school

improvement model. Children & Schools, 35(4), 225- 234.


Monroe, S.M., Slavich, G.M., Torres, L.D., & Gotlib, I.H. (2007). Major life events and

major chronic difficulties are differentially associated with history of major

depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 116- 140.

O'Neil, L., Guenette, F. & Kitchenham, A. (2010). 'Am I safe here and do you like me?'

Understanding complex trauma and attachment disruption in the classroom.

British Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 190- 197.

Pritchard, A.M. (1993). A common format for poverty: A content analysis of social

problems textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 21, 42- 49.

Rank, M.R., & Hirschl, T.A. (1999). The economic risk of childhood in America:

Estimating the probability of poverty across the formative years. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 61, 1058- 1067.

Richardson, M.M, Coryn, C.L.S., Henry, J., Black- Pond, C., & Unrau, Y. (2012).

Development and evaluation of the trauma -informed system change instrument:

Factorial validity and implications for use. Child and Adolescent Social Work

Journal, 29, 167- 184.

Rogalsky, J. (2009). “Mythbusters”: Dispelling the culture of poverty myth in the urban

classroom. Journal of Geography, 108, 198- 209.

Sabatino, C.A., Kelley, E.C., Moriarity, J., & Lean, E. (2013). Response to intervention:

A guide to scientifically based research for school social work services. Child &

Schools, 35(4), 213- 223.

Stromquist, N.P. (2001). What poverty does to girls' education: The intersection of class,

gender and policy in latin america. Compare, 31(1), 39- 56.

Thompson, B. (1995). Ethical dimensions in trauma research. The American Sociologist,


22, 54- 69.

Wadsworth, M.E., Raviv, T., Reinhard, C., Wolff, B., Santiago, C.D., & Einhorn, L.

(2008). An indirect effects model of the association between poverty and child

functioning: The role of children's poverty- related stress. Journal of Loss and

Trauma, 13, 156- 185.

Walkey, M., & Cox, T.L. (2013). Building trauma -informed schools and communities.

Children & Schools, 35(2), 123- 126.

Wrigley, T. (2012). Poverty in education in the age of hypocrisy. Education Review,

24(2), 90- 98.

Yeskel, F. (2008). Coming to class: Looking at education through the lens of class.

Equity and Excellence in Education, 41(1), 1-11.

trauma_chaptbychapt_thesis

Documents