On May 14, 2022, an 18-year-old white man walked into a supermarket in a predominantly Black area of Buffalo, New York and opened fire. This hate crime–resulting in the death of 10 people–was the result of a gunman intentionally seeking out an area with a high concentration of Black people. Unfortunately, this story is not an anomaly, and racially-ethnically marginalized students across the US bear witness to racial trauma in their everyday lives (Saleem et al., 2020). Racially-ethnically marginalized students also face racial trauma in school as they seek an education within the context of biased-based bullying (Mulvey et al., 2016), racial microaggressions (Allen et al., 2013), and policies and practices that undermine the importance of race and culture in students’ lives (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). This is particularly detrimental as students of color are often punished for behaviors stemming from trauma and their own cultural context that do not meet the expectations of the white dominant culture of schools, further contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline (Tate et al., 2013). These experiences can create a cycle of traumatization for racially-ethnically marginalized students and prevent them from learning, warranting the need for educators to use trauma-informed practice alongside culturally responsive pedagogical approaches (Blitz et al., 2016).
Trauma-informed practice considers the impact of childhood trauma on student learning and behavior (Fondren et al., 2020). The most prominent approaches to trauma-informed practice are heavily influenced by whiteness and hegemonic systems of dominance (Alvarez, 2020). Trauma-informed practice does not, inherently, address the needs of those students whose manifested symptoms are a result of oppression and racial injustice (Curry, 2010). For example, researchers find that white educators often have a narrow view of how students should express their emotions, and this expectation of emotional expression is often in conflict with how Black students are actually feeling (e.g., incorrectly perceiving Black students as angry more often than white students; Halberstadt et al., 2022). Symptoms of sadness and depression in Black students who have experienced racial trauma may present as irritability or anger due to the vulnerabilities and risks associated with traditional expression of sadness. White educators’ lack of awareness of these varying expressions of depression and sadness may result in misinterpretation of Black youth’s sadness for aggression. Such mis-interpretation and misalignment in emotional expressions can result in punitive disciplinary actions (e.g., expulsion) that feed the school-to-prison pipeline (Halberstadt et al., 2018). These, and other, white-dominant approaches to trauma-informed practice devalue racially-ethnically marginalized students, creating a damaging cycle of re-traumatization. Thus, those looking to enact trauma-informed practice in schools should pair it with cultural responsiveness.
Cultural responsiveness centers students’ individual and collective backgrounds, and is empowering and comprehensive of students’ true selves (Gay, 2018). It acknowledges the accumulation of historical trauma and cross-cultural differences that result in punitive action for marginalized students. For this reason, prior research has suggested that there is a need to practice trauma-informed care within a culturally responsive framework in order to maximize its effectiveness (Blitz et al., 2016). Implementing cultural responsiveness effectively requires an understanding of systemic and racial oppression that serves to undermine ethnically marginalized students’ cultural selves (Ladson-Billings, 1995). It is through this understanding that trauma-informed practice can be effective for racially-ethnically marginalized students. Similarly, trauma-informed professional development is not just about educators creating nurturing learning environments for students through simplistic measures like only replacing library books with representatives of different cultures. It addresses the power of racist systems and practices within schools that often traumatize students and feed the school-to-prison pipeline. Without the appropriate groundwork to create a safe and open environment, however, attempts to engage educators with these topics can backfire and result in feelings of shame and defensiveness (Blitz et al., 2016). Thus, more conversations and practical tools are needed to enhance educators’ sense of readiness to integrate a culturally responsive approach with their pedagogy, inclusive of trauma informed practices.
In this chapter, we describe a readiness framework to better prepare educators and schools to implement cultural responsiveness and trauma-informed practice effectively and cohesively. We begin by providing insight into our positionalities as educators and researchers. We then introduce a novel framework for collective- and individual-level readiness to engage in culturally responsive, trauma-informed professional development. By collective readiness, we are referring to aspects at the school-level that can prepare the school community to engage in conversations related to trauma, racism, and cultural responsiveness. We consider four domains for collective readiness: Leadership, Awareness, Commitment, and Climate. Individual readiness includes factors that contribute to individual educators’ preparedness to engage in a journey to becoming a culturally responsive and trauma-informed practitioner within their school. There are also four domains of individual readiness: Social, Cultural, Emotional, and Behavioral. We conclude with practical strategies for promoting collective and individual readiness in schools. We contend that educators who are prepared for culturally responsive and trauma-informed professional development will be better equipped to implement pedagogy and practice in their classrooms, which provides safe environments for racially-ethnically marginalized students to learn.