ArticlePDF Available

Healing Schools: A Framework for Joining Trauma-Informed Care, Restorative Justice, and Multicultural Education for Whole School Reform

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Trauma-informed Care (TIC), Restorative Justice (RJ), and Multicultural Education (MCE) are three approaches to school reform widely being discussed and promoted within schools. The authors of this paper, representing the fields of psychology, social work, and education, present an integrated framework that acknowledges the commonalities these three models share, as well as the ways that they complement one another by focusing our attention on different aspects of urban education. We argue that the concept of healing offers a powerful heuristic for systemic school reform — a guide for rethinking how we address pedagogical, disciplinary, curricular, and policy decisions. We are calling for the creation of “healing schools,” arguing that, 1) Schools can play a valuable role in promoting healing and well-being among the students and families with whom they engage and 2) Many of our urban schools themselves need healing because they have become systems of toxic environments for adults and youth alike. To address the need for healing in schools, we present a framework promoting four key values: relationships, safety, belonging, and agency. These values are embedded within an ecological perspective, exploring how they manifest at the internal, student, school, and community/society levels.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-023-00666-5
Abstract
Trauma-informed Care (TIC), Restorative Justice (RJ), and Multicultural Education
(MCE) are three approaches to school reform widely being discussed and promoted
within schools. The authors of this paper, representing the elds of psychology,
social work, and education, present an integrated framework that acknowledges the
commonalities these three models share, as well as the ways that they complement
one another by focusing our attention on dierent aspects of urban education. We
argue that the concept of healing oers a powerful heuristic for systemic school
reform — a guide for rethinking how we address pedagogical, disciplinary, cur-
ricular, and policy decisions. We are calling for the creation of “healing schools,”
arguing that, 1) Schools can play a valuable role in promoting healing and well-
being among the students and families with whom they engage and 2) Many of our
urban schools themselves need healing because they have become systems of toxic
environments for adults and youth alike. To address the need for healing in schools,
we present a framework promoting four key values: relationships, safety, belonging,
and agency. These values are embedded within an ecological perspective, exploring
how they manifest at the internal, student, school, and community/society levels.
Keywords Trauma-Informed Care · Restorative Justice · Multicultural Education ·
Whole-school approach · Schools
Over the past twenty years, there has been increasing recognition that schools cannot
successfully educate all students without addressing the harm and trauma that many
youth experience both in and out of school. Drawing on lessons from medicine, pub-
lic health, neurology, psychology, and other elds, education researchers are begin-
ning to document the eects of harm and trauma on young people’s educational and
developmental trajectories, and outlining roles that educators can play in supporting
Accepted: 10 June 2023 / Published online: 14 August 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Healing Schools: A Framework for Joining Trauma-Informed
Care, Restorative Justice, and Multicultural Education for
Whole School Reform
Uma DornParameswaran1· JenniferMolloy2· PaulKuttner3
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
healing and resilience (e.g. Ginwright, 2010, 2016; Phillips & Shonko, 2000; Walk-
ley & Cox, 2013).
The idea that schools should focus eorts on healing is anathema to some, who
maintain a narrow view of the purpose of schools, and overwhelming to others, who
worry that schools simply cannot take on the burden of addressing health alongside
everything else we expect from our education system. Urban schools in particular are
often under resourced and overburdened as students, educators, and families reckon
with concentrated poverty, violence, and other racialized legacies of the history of
US cities (Rothstein, 2017). Still, urban schools are impacted by, and implicated in,
the systems that cause harm to young people, and healing can be a prerequisite to
achieving other educational goals. And urban schools often have unique assets to
bring to this work — namely, communities with a high level of cultural and linguistic
diversity that, though often treated as a problem, has been underleveraged in eorts
to improve schools.
In fact, we argue that the concept of healing oers a powerful heuristic for sys-
temic school reform — a guide for rethinking how we address pedagogical, disci-
plinary, curricular, and policy decisions. We are calling for the creation of “healing
schools” in two senses. First, we believe that urban schools can play a valuable role in
promoting healing and well-being among the students and families with whom they
engage (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). Second, we recognize that many of our urban
schools themselves need healing because they have become toxic environments for
adults and youth alike (Ginwright, 2010).
School reform goes beyond the individual and focuses on the “power of the collec-
tive" and “reform from within” (Leana, 2011, para. 18). Often school reform misses
“system t,” with new frameworks applied without considering the nuances of the
school’s current culture and practices (McIntyre, 2019). The framework we present
in this article, then, is not a prescriptive set of practices and policies. Rather, we oer
a guide for schools to do the work of transformation through collective dialogue,
action, and reection in pursuit of key values.
Healing, here, refers to a multi-layered, ecological process that addresses well-
being and resilience on the individual, school, and community/societal level. Rooted
in relationships and based on an understanding that much of the trauma our students
face is the result of systemic oppression, this conception of healing is inextricable
from that of justice. As Shawn Ginwright (2016) explains in his powerful book, Hope
and Healing in Urban Education, healing should be a political act, rooted in social
justice.
“Healing is political because those that focus on healing in urban communities
recognize how structural oppression threatens the well-being of individuals and
communities, and understands well-being as a collective necessity rather than
an individual choice… community organizing and acting in ways that improve
communities builds a sense of control, agency, and self-determination, which
are important for collective well-being.” (p. 8)
This article is not about increasing access to health and social services. Rather, it is
about how schools can promote individual and collective healing in the process of
1 3
187
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
carrying out traditional school activities like teaching and learning. Nor is this article
about working from decit views of youth and families as broken or needy. People
are much more than their traumas, and many of the most valuable resources for pro-
moting resilience and health are found in the knowledge, cultural wealth, and agency
of students and their communities (Ginwright, 2016, 2018; Yosso, 2005).
The framework in this article represents an eort to combine the insights of three
school reform movements: Trauma-informed Care (TIC), Restorative Justice (RJ),
and Multicultural Education (MCE). These three approaches are widely discussed
among educators and researchers, yet there is limited literature on their intersections.
This can be particularly frustrating when it comes to training teachers and administra-
tors, as the approaches are presented as quite distinct with little guidance on how to
merge them into a holistic approach to school improvement. In actuality, these three
approaches share fundamental concerns, intersect and reinforce one another in some
areas, and complement one another in other areas where each historically falls short.
Healing Through Three Lenses
This article is premised on the understanding that trauma and harm, along with resil-
ience and healing, are intertwined aspects of the life stories of many of our students.
It is estimated that 35,000 students in our urban schools have experienced at least one
Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE), a traumatic event or ongoing experience such
as physical or emotional abuse, parental incarceration, or an episode of violence in
the neighborhood (Felitti et al., 1998). Instances of discrimination, harassment, and
aggression based on, for example, racial or gender/sexual identity are also common
sources of traumatic stress for young people, though often not included in the ACE
literature (Carter, 2007; Diaz & Kosciw, 2009).
These individual traumas/resiliencies are often linked to collective traumas/resil-
iencies aecting the broader communities of which students are a part. Collective
trauma refers to “the shared injuries to a population’s social, cultural, and physical
ecologies” (Saul, 2013, p. 1), and can include relational trauma (harm to the fabric
of important relationships in a family or community), cultural trauma (harm to the
shared consciousness and identity of a collective), and historical trauma, or the cumu-
lative impact of harm over multiple generations of systemic oppression (Alexander et
al., 2004; National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2013; Saul, 2013).
The eects of these traumas/resiliencies are brought into school. Trauma and
violence can have signicant impacts on students’ school experiences, as evidenced
by indicators like lower reading achievement, increased behavior problems, and
decreased school attendance (Ko et al., 2008). And the systems that perpetuate
trauma do not stop at the school walls. Young people can be harmed or (re)trau-
matized in school through experiences such as homophobic bullying the complex
system of practices, beliefs, and policies that have come to be known as the school-
to-prison pipeline (Bahena et al., 2012; Diaz & Kosciw, 2009). Nor are adults in
schools immune, whether due to their own challenging life experiences, secondary
trauma from working with students, or the experience of dehumanizing and stressful
school climates (Alisic, 2012; Dworkin, 2009).
1 3
188
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
The prevalence of individual and collective trauma calls for individual and col-
lective healing. In addition to addressing immediate health needs, healing is about
building individual and communal resilience, or the capacity to recover from and
overcome adversity in ways that often leave one stronger and more prepared for future
adversity. Our students, families, and communities already have access to valuable
sources of resilience — in their familial and social networks, their languages, cultural
practices, and belief systems, their stories and identities, their histories of organizing,
etc. (Saul, 2013; Yosso, 2005). Creating opportunities to increase resilience is about
recognizing and strengthening these existing capacities while addressing the systems
that perpetuate harm in our communities in the rst place. How does this kind of
work take place in urban schools? To answer this question, we draw on three popular
but often thinly-applied approaches to school reform.
Trauma-Informed Care
Trauma informed care (TIC) has its roots in the feminist movement and the establish-
ment of rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters in the 1970’s (Burgess &
Holmstrom, 1974). This emphasis extended to child advocacy centers in the 1980’s
(National Children’s Advocacy Center, 2018) and became a focus in schools when the
well-known ACE study revealed that traumatic events have negative outcomes that
impact many children (Felitti et al., 1998; Whiteld, 1998). Research has shown that
children who have experienced these events are likely to have “risky health behav-
iors, chronic health conditions, low life potential, and early death” (CDC, 2016, para.
2). Since the ACE study, a few states including Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Califor-
nia, and Washington, have adopted trauma-informed approaches within their school
systems. These approaches are rooted in understanding the awareness of the impact
of trauma, knowledge of the signs and symptoms of trauma, responsive practices to
consider the holistic needs of the student and lastly to avoid further trauma in the
schools (SAMHSA, 2014). Within these frameworks there is variability in how they
are applied but at the core of these approaches, Bath (2008) argues, are three pillars:
safety, connections, and managing emotions.
A child’s sense of safety is threatened when they experience trauma. Thus, it is
imperative that urban schools provide an atmosphere of physical and emotional
safety within the school environment not only for children who have experienced
trauma, but for all children. Sense of safety is rooted in relationships. Bath (2008)
argues that “positive relationships are necessary for healthy human development,
but trauma undermines these life-giving connections” (p.19). Schools are lled with
adults who can oer such “life-giving connections.” Connection, therefore, is the
second pillar. Purposeful and meaningful connections with teachers, administrators,
and sta can be the corrective emotional experiences that children need when they
have experienced trauma, often at the hands of adults. Connections in the classroom
with peers and teachers can create an atmosphere of emotional safety, which supports
healing. And positive relationships with teachers and the school can promote not only
pro-social behavior, but deeper engagement in learning.
The nal pillar of TIC is managing emotions. Emotional regulation and dysregula-
tion, the ability or inability to adjust our emotional responses within a given context
1 3
189
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
(internal or external) works to help students make connections between emotion and
behavior while also understanding its impact on relationships. The trauma that chil-
dren experience can rewire their brains towards dysregulation (Siegel & Solomon,
2003) and can have them vacillating from either feeling too much or not feeling at all.
Allowing space for a child to feel and tolerate distress is integral in learning to under-
stand and express their emotions. As children learn to regulate in the context of their
relationships with peers and teachers, they can work towards building connections
and feeling safe. Trauma informed care, however, on its own falls short of holding a
safe and supportive space for students as it misses the mark in addressing the needs of
urban students who may be at higher risk for trauma (Gherardi et al., 2020).
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice (RJ) is a multi-layered concept (Reimer, 2015), which originated
in the criminal justice system in the mid-1970s; however, its guiding principles
predate Western society. The roots of RJ are thought to stem from Indigenous and
spiritual peacemaking traditions and practices which emphasize the interconnected-
ness of humanity and collective responsibility for building and repairing community
(Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015). Justice is understood as a violation of a relationship
rather than as a judgment of right versus wrong (Zehr, 2005). When a community
member commits a violation, they are expected to face those they harmed and make
a commitment to rectify the problem, restoring relationships and making right with
the community.
In the school context RJ is used in a broader sense, with three interconnected com-
ponents: (1) creating just and equitable learning environments; (2) nurturing healthy
relationships; and (3) repairing harm and transforming conict (Evans & Vaandering,
2016). Practices associated with RJ can be used responsively to promote healing of
harm or brokenness within relationships as well as proactively to build relationships,
socio-emotional and problem-solving skills, and the overall capacity of students and
adults to resolve conict. Examples of restorative practices in urban schools include
restorative questioning, community building circles, and restorative conferencing.
These practices are rooted in principles of relationality, equal participation, and dia-
logue. When responding to harm, principles include a holistic and contextualized
understanding and response to the harm, inclusive decision-making, and needs-based
and forward-focused approach (Llewellyn et al., 2013).
RJ can be an “opportunity pipeline” for students who are especially vulnerable,
including those who have experienced trauma (Knight & Wadhwa, 2014). RJ builds
on students’ strengths, creates connections between students and educators, and can
safeguard students’ resilience. RJ pushes back against an understanding of academic
challenges and student misbehavior as purposeful misconduct requiring punishment.
Instead, RJ seeks to create a school culture where supportive and healthy relation-
ships are developed, modeled, and when necessary repaired, shifting from a culture
of social control to one emphasizing social engagement (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012). Boyes-Watson and Pranis (2015) state, “there is untapped potential in the
capacity of schools to be sanctuaries in the lives of stressed children and adults by
creating the space for ongoing relational connection” (p. 8). Whole-school imple-
1 3
190
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
mentation of RJ can support the transformation of school structures and students’
lives, the creation of equitable and humane conditions and relationships throughout
the school community, and the reduction in high levels of disadvantage and exclusion
(Drewery, 2016).
Multicultural Education
Multicultural education (MCE) emerged from the social movements of the 1950s and
1960s and rst took hold in the form of ethnic studies in higher education (Banks,
1989). It challenged the prevailing model of monocultural education, predicated
on assimilating culturally and linguistically diverse students into a dominant white
national culture. Since then, the movement has expanded to address issues related to
race, gender, ethnicity, class, language, sexuality, ability, and other axes of identity
and oppression (Nieto, 2004; Sleeter & Grant, 2003). MCE serves as an umbrella
term for a wide range of approaches based on diverse theories and assumptions. What
these approaches share is the goal of ensuring educational equity and opportunity for
all students within a diverse and pluralistic society (Sleeter & Grant, 2003).
As an approach to whole-school reform, multicultural education can infuse all
aspects of the educational endeavor. There are signicant literatures about how
to develop curricula that decenter dominant narratives and integrate a multivocal
array of perspectives, histories, knowledges, and experiences (May & Sleeter, 2010;
Sleeter & Grant, 2003); pedagogies that build on the cultural wealth of young people
and engage them in critically addressing injustice (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amante, 2006;
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012; Yosso, 2005); policies like detracking & inclu-
sion that distribute resources equitably and challenge assumptions of who can and
cannot succeed in school (Banks, 1989); dual language programs and other eorts
to sustain heritage languages in school (Torres-Guzmán, 2007); teacher training that
supports educators in confronting biases and developing multicultural and antiracist
orientations (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Vavrus, 2002); and school cultures that are wel-
coming for, and honoring of, students’ families and communities (Dantas & Manyak,
2011); among other approaches.
We use the term MCE to refer not to a specic set of techniques, but rather as
an overall orientation toward schooling. Other practices such as culturally relevant,
responsive, and sustaining pedagogy are inclusive within our conception of MCE
(Ladson-Billings, 2021, Milner, 2011). MCE is rooted in an understanding that learn-
ing takes place within a broader sociopolitical context that includes long histories
of racialization, oppression, colonialism, and inequitable distribution of power and
resources (Nieto, 2004; Sleeter & Grant, 2003). In this context, urban education must
prepare all students as critical actors who can both navigate and work collectively to
change these power structures. It understands cultures not as static or monolithic, but
rather as uid, contested, and evolving. Following the work of Nieto (2004), multi-
cultural education, is 1) antiracist and anti-discriminatory, 2) targeted at all students,
3) oriented toward social justice, 4) rooted in critical pedagogy, 5) a process rather
than an end state, and 6) a basic education for how to live well in a multicultural
world.
1 3
191
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Integrating the Three Approaches
Despite having dierent primary focuses and distinct languages, these three
approaches are grounded in similar values and goals. All three provide a lens for
understanding and impacting relationships within the school environment. They seek
the creation of a positive school climate, where students and adults experience a
sense of belonging and connectedness. All three address students individually and
holistically as full and unique people. They also understand students in context, as
members of families and communities with past experiences and histories. They are
strengths- and resiliency-based, require an attitude shift on behalf of educators, and
take signicant time to take root. The three approaches are misunderstood in similar
ways as well. They are often thought of as targeted interventions focused on specic
students (e.g., traumatized students, students of color) in response to problems of
student behavior and low academic achievement. However, they are much more than
that. When implemented fully, these three approaches are proactive eorts to advance
development, growth, learning, and empowerment for all students (See Fig. 1).
In addition to sharing commonalities, these three approaches can be complemen-
tary, focusing attention on dierent facets of students’ experiences and shoring one
another up where each fall short. TIC is particularly useful for drawing our attention
to the inner life of students, the lasting impacts of life experiences outside of school,
and the need to attend to students’ emotional landscapes. TIC brings ideas of trauma,
healing, and resilience to the forefront in terms of individual traumas related to vio-
lence, abuse, and family life. However, TIC often misses the need to move beyond
individual trauma/resiliency toward an environment that fosters learning, equity, and
well-being, and has done less to focus our attention on more collective and systemic
traumas/resiliencies related to racism, oppression, and poverty. Ginwright (2018), for
example, has challenged the limited scope of TIC and its potential for decit views
of students. In the critical analysis of trauma-sensitive schools, Gherardi et al. (2020)
calls for the integration of social justice education to address the gaps within the TIC.
RJ, in turn, focuses our attention on the school as a community. It oers tools for
collective healing and creates opportunities for students to be leaders in building a
strong community. It actively disrupts processes of punishment, policing, and exclu-
sion that can (re)traumatize young people and funnel youth into the criminal justice
system. At the same time, RJ can lack an understanding of how trauma impacts the
ability of children to develop the trusting relationships necessary for restorative prac-
tices to work. Moreover, it has been critiqued as falling short of addressing the larger
structural systems that oppress young people and for not paying enough attention to
issues of race and inequity, with some calling for more critical and transformative
approaches (Joseph et al., 2021; Wadhwa, 2016).
MCE at its best draws attention to how urban education takes place within a broader
social, political, cultural, and historical context. Students and teachers come to class
not only as members of a school community, but also embedded in diverse and over-
lapping communities, institutions, and systems that shape the educational experience
in positive and negative ways. MCE challenges both the current and cumulative harm
of systems of oppression such as racism and heterosexism and highlights the long
histories of resistance and transformative organizing carried out by communities that
1 3
192
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
have been most harmed by these systems. At the same time, multicultural education
has been roundly criticized for having lofty goals but being implemented in “add-on”
ways that do not challenge the status-quo. Moreover, MCE does not usually integrate
an explicitly trauma-informed lens or emphasize the need for restorative practices as
part of engaging youth in social critique and action.
This is a simplication. Practitioners of TIC often pay attention to questions of
school community, RJ can engage youth in addressing broader systems of inequality,
and MCE pays attention to the internal life of students in terms of identity devel-
opment. However, we feel these overlaps only strengthen our case that these three
approaches have much in common. Initial attempts have been made to document
the theoretical linkages as well as the relevance and importance of taking a trauma-
informed approach in RJ within the criminal justice system (Randall & Haskell,
2013) and urban education (Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015). Nevertheless, this work
has had limited reach when it comes to training, practice, and research. Similarly,
the role of RJ in reducing disparities in disciplinary action for minoritized students
Fig. 1 Commonalities between TIC, RJ, and MCE
1 3
193
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
has begun to gain attention (Kline, 2016; Skiba et al., 2016), and some initial eorts
to combine multicultural and restorative practices have been documented (Bintli,
2011). However, no focus has been given to bringing TIC, RJ, and MCE under one
umbrella.
Healing Schools: A Values-Based and Ecological Approach
At the core of these three approaches to school reform is the idea of leveraging
relationships to promote an equitable and just learning environment that takes into
account the broader contexts within which urban education takes place. Rather than
seeing these approaches as having three distinct applications (or worse, as competing
imperatives) our model proposes that urban schools develop interrelated practices
based on a set of core values: relationships, belonging, safety, and agency. By starting
with values, as opposed to practices, we seek to highlight the importance of culture
shift in implementing these three approaches to school reform, as well as the need to
adapt practices based on school and community contexts. Training and implementa-
tion based on values allows for greater internalization and motivation towards a “way
of being” with students rather than a “way of doing” (Williams et al., 2016). We refer
to this as “values-based implementation.”
While working toward these core values will have multiple outcomes, we con-
ceptualize the framework broadly as a process of healing. It is about healing from
past experiences of trauma and harm to ourselves and our communities so that these
experiences do not interfere with positive learning and development and so that we
can nd in them new sources of strength. It is about healing through relationships that
promote a sense of safety, belonging, shared responsibility, and shared power. Ulti-
mately, it is about healing towards community that strengthens resiliency, upholds
equity and justice, and supports our individual and collective agency to dene our
paths in the world and have an impact in the systems that aect us.
Below we explore the rationale for, and enactment of, the four key values in our
framework. We break each down into four scales, or levels, at which this work must
take place: the internal work that educators do to fully internalize and authentically
enact these values; how the values are enacted at the micro level through interper-
sonal interactions with students; how these values can inform structures, policies,
and culture at the school level; and ways of enacting these values in relation to the
broader community and society. We refer to these levels as self, student, school, and
community (see Fig. 2).
Relationships
Trauma and injustice undermine our ability to form the healthy relationships that are
required for personal development and community wellbeing (Bath, 2008; Zurbrig-
gen, Gobin, & Kaehler, 2012). Therefore, caring and authentic relationships must
be at the center of eorts to build resilience and health. From TIC, we recognize
“comfortable connections” with caring adults as key to promoting healing and ensur-
ing a sense of safety (Bath, 2008). From RJ we draw a denition of justice rooted
1 3
194
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
in people’s interconnectedness and recognize the importance of relational ecologies
in schools rooted in respect, acceptance, and reciprocity (Brown, 2018; Vaandering,
2011). From MCE, we expand the importance of relationships to encompass families
and communities, and the larger social and cultural forces impacting our relation-
ships (Dantas & Manyak, 2011; Nieto, 2004).
Building relationships across dierences in age, race, culture, language, and
experience begins with educators having critical self-awareness: an understanding
of their relational styles and approaches to conict, their identities and biases, and
their positioning within systems of power (Hidalgo, 1993; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Educators are called on to examine how their values and beliefs shape the way they
see the world and act within it (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). They are also called on
to develop cultural humility: an orientation in which educators don’t assume cultural
superiority or cultural competence, but rather are committed to learning with others,
seeing the world in new ways, and challenging systems that privilege one culture
over another (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). This self-work prepares educators
to interact with students and families in an individualized, contextualized, and mean-
ingful way.
Healing schools rely on student-teacher relationships that are caring, nonjudgmen-
tal, trusting, and arming of students that don’t t the dominant culture (Villegas &
Lucas, 2002). Relationship building takes place both in and out of formal learning
environments and should include consideration of the teacher and student as whole
people including roles, identities, experiences (including experiences of trauma/
resilience), communication styles, and situatedness in families and communities. For
educators, this involves inquiry into the identities and experiences of youth. This is
aided by learning about the histories and cultures of the communities from which stu-
dents come, and by developing a sociopolitical consciousness that includes a critique
Fig. 2 Framework for healing
schools: a values-based ecosys-
temic model
1 3
195
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
of how schools perpetuate inequity. Ultimately, though, it must be about working
collaboratively with students to understand one another’s’ complex identities and
histories (Nieto, 2004; Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Healing schools call for fostering classroom communities that are characterized
by respect for each person’s unique lived experiences, cultural background, and truth;
accountability to the group for one’s actions; and a recognition of our shared human
dignity and interconnection (Armster & Amstutz, 2008; Smith et al., 2015). Students
are honored for the unique gifts they bring into the community, and room is made for
students to practice their own out-of-school manners of interacting, communicating,
learning, and building relationships with one another (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris,
2012). Classroom communities like this model for students the social and interper-
sonal relationships that will be critical for their growth and development (Amstutz et
al., 2018; Hendry, 2009) and oer a corrective emotional experience where students
can heal from interpersonal ruptures in prior and current relationships (Straus, 2016).
Healing at the level of the school community can begin when a focus on rela-
tionships is infused throughout the school (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). Taking a
“whole-school approach” to relationships means paying attention to the relationships
among faculty and sta as well as with students (Hendry, 2009). Strong and trusting
relationships among adults can serve as models for students and increas the capacity
Table 1 Four values of healing schools
Relationships Safety Belonging Agency
Self What is my approach
to building relation-
ships? How is this im-
pacted by my values,
beliefs, experiences,
and social identities?
How am I com-
municating safety/
unsafety through my
individual actions
and the way I carry
out institutional
processes?
What is my own
sense of (dis)
belonging in the
school and what
inuences those
feelings?
Where and in what
ways do I feel a
sense of agency in
my life and in my
school?
Student How can I create
opportunities for
authentic adult-student
and student-student
relationships building?
How do I communi-
cate safety promote a
culture of kind-
ness, openness, and
anti-oppression in the
classroom?
What are my
students’ key
identities and
experiences and
how can I create
a classroom envi-
ronment in which
those are honored?
In what ways
could students be
more involved in
decisions about
their educations
and classrooms?
School What practices
will help us build a
relational culture in
the school marked by
shared understand-
ing, pluralism, and
interdependence?
What is our shared
vision for promoting
safety and interrupt-
ing unsafety, and how
do we ensure it is
consistently applied?
How can we shift
policies that rely
on exclusion
and assimilation
toward inclusion
and pluralism?
How can we create
or improve sys-
tems for teachers,
students, and fami-
lies to be involved
in school-level
decision making?
Communi-
ty/ Society
How can we create op-
portunities and struc-
tures that encourage
authentic relationships
with families?
How might we col-
laborate with families
and community
partners to address
safety concerns in the
community?
How do we create
a sense of belong-
ing for and to our
students’ families?
What is the
schools’ role in
working with fam-
ilies and students
to critically engage
with and play
leadership roles in
the community?
1 3
196
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
of educators to lead collective change. Building a relational culture across the school
can be supported by instituting certain rituals and practices (e.g., community building
circles, one-on-one meetings) and by directly addressing ruptures in the relational
ecology of the school, including individual and collective traumas and day-to-day
forms of oppression and marginalization (Hendry, 2009; Warren & Mapp, 2011).
Students come to school as part of families and communities. These spheres of
inuence play a role in a student’s growth and development, and students benet
when there is connection and collaboration between them (Epstein et al., 2018).
Unfortunately, in many urban schools — particularly in low-wealth communities,
communities of color, and (im)migrant communities — school-community relation-
ships are marked by histories of disconnection, distrust, and decit approaches to
families (Dantas & Manyak, 2011). Building relationships between school sta and
families/community members is a necessary step in healing these rifts and building
the capacity of schools and families to support students (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013).
These relationships help teachers better understand the life experiences and cultural
perspectives of students, help parents better understand their children’s experiences
and goals in school, and set the groundwork for authentic, trusting partnerships that
honor what each brings to the table (Dantas & Manyak, 2011).
Safety
Safety, or the initial trust that develops early in one’s life through primary relation-
ships with our caretaker, is often the foundation of our future relationships. However,
exposure to trauma “destroys…the fundamental assumptions about the safety of the
world, the positive value of the self, and the meaningful order of creation” (Her-
man 1997, p. 51). This includes the many young people in our communities who
face ongoing threats of bias, discrimination, and violence based on their race, sexual
orientation, gender, immigration status, ability, etc. (Bonnie et al., 2014). Establish-
ing safety within schools, then, becomes fundamental to creating an environment
for healing and learning. Schools can become a “blanket of safety comprehensive
enough to cover every space and every person” (Cole et al., 2013, p. 21). Unfortu-
nately, schools themselves are often fraught with potential threats, including inter-
personal violence, bullying, discrimination, and the intrusion of the criminal justice
system. Creating a culture of safety requires addressing diverse facets of the school,
from the physical building, to student-teacher relationships, to interactions with par-
ents and community (Parrett & Budge, 2012).
Nurturing safety in the school begins with educators developing an understanding
of themselves as embodied individuals with particular ways of moving and being in
the world. This understanding is continually moving and shifting, and rooted in our
cultural background and evolving understanding of ourselves as raced, gendered,
sexualized, and (dis)abled individuals. Educators need to develop an understanding
of how one’s physicality can be (mis)interpreted across cultures and in response to
traumatic experiences. In addition, educators need to examine how approaches to
“safety” in schools that rely on policing and control (e.g., metal detectors, police
ocers in school) may end up leading to greater unsafety for certain students (e.g.,
1 3
197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
students of color) for whom this raises risks of being proled and caught up in the
criminal justice system.
For students who have experienced harm and trauma, relationships with educators
are central to establishing safety in the schools. Educators have the potential become
the secondary relationships for children in safeguarding these assumptions of self, the
world, and others. This requires the maintenance of trusting relationships that oer
predictability and consistency. It also requires close attention to classroom culture,
promoting a culture of kindness and openness that is free of bullying and disrupts and
addresses oppression (verbal, physical, emotional and relational) (Morrison, 2006).
Educators can also support processes of safe self-exploration among students, so that
students can build a sense of personal safety and a trust in their bodies that comes
from understanding more of themselves. The school environment then becomes a
place to explore who am I, how do I experience the world, how do I feel, how do I
react, and what do I do. Much of this work is through self-understanding and self-
regulation that comes from relational ruptures and the repair that must happen (Hen-
dry, 2009). But this rupture and repair does not happen in a siloed way; instead we
interact with others that connect us within a web of safety — peers and adults in the
classroom are also trying to explore and understand their needs of safety.
Creating a school that ensures physical, emotional and psychological safety
requires a school-wide culture of “reliability, predictability, availability, honesty, and
transparency” (Bath, 2008, p. 19)” and a culture of empowerment, resilience, chal-
lenge and risk-taking. Creating the idea that schools are ok, adults are ok, and that the
child will be ok are vital to reinforce within the school environment and every inter-
action, as is the concerted eort to engage and collectively address bullying, inter-
personal violence, microaggressions, and oppression (Greenwald, 2005). Sta and
administration can further the feelings of safety in their interactions with students and
teachers by creating a similar atmosphere to that which is fostered in the classroom
(Brown, 2018). It is also important to ensure that there is predictability across class-
rooms and teachers as well as other spaces such as lunch room, halls, and principals’
oces. This requires a school community — adults and youth alike — that adopts a
clear vision and plan for creating safe spaces and a way to discuss and address when
spaces are unsafe. A student who walks in the cafeteria or P.E. or the front oce
can know that they can trust the adults to maintain their feelings of safety through
structure, limit setting and communication (how and what they communicate). For
example, discipline systems/practices that are consistent across the school (from the
cafeteria to the front oce) regardless what space you are in, rather than at the whim
or personality of the adult implementing the practice.
Community sense of safety is often mirrored in the school and vice versa. Threats
to the broader community e.g., violence, over-policing, deportations aect
whether and in what state students arrive at school. There is a need, then, to col-
lectively address these realities, from safety for children to walk to and from school
or the ride the bus to larger community’s general sense of safety from physical and
emotional harm. This calls for concerted eorts on the school to reach out to parents
and community partners to engage them in co-creating safe spaces at school, in the
home, and in the community. The school can be a strong partner with organized
communities in addressing issues of violence, racism, and other forms of oppression
1 3
198
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
in their neighborhoods (Warren & Mapp, 2011). In addition, educators can engage
students in learning and dialoguing about issues of violence and safety their commu-
nities and schools, and taking action to change them, through various forms of critical
pedagogy and youth organizing (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008).
Belonging
Belonging — being part of groups in which you feel respected and supported, where
“the group is important to them and they are important to the group” — is recognized
by many psychologists as a core human need, “almost as compelling a need as food”
(Baumeister et al., 1995, p. 498; Maslow, 1970). Research has linked experiences
of belonging to many aspects of wellbeing including self-esteem and the ability to
manage stress, as well as protecting against loneliness, mental illness, and depression
(Allen & Bowles, 2012). Whether or not students feel they “belong” within their
school contexts has signicant impact on their motivation, engagement, behavior,
achievement, and hope (Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Ma, 2003; Ostermann, 2000;
Ryan et al., 2000; Wingspread, 2004). Unfortunately, many forces in our society ad
in our schools promote dis-belonging and “belonging uncertainty” rooted in aca-
demic ability; cultural beliefs and practices; race, sexuality, gender identity, or class;
immigration status; and other factors (Christensen, 2009; Walton & Cohen, 2007).
Too many schools act as if belonging is a reward for achievement and good behavior,
rather than a precondition (Kunc, 1992).
Belonging can be understood as beginning, in part, from within — a process of
developing one’s identity and seeing a bit of oneself in others (May, 2011). Educa-
tors can start by interrogating their own understanding of belonging in the school and
other spaces. To what communities, identities, or spaces do you belong? What makes
you feel you belong, or don’t belong, somewhere? Do you see yourself in your col-
leagues, students, and their families? Do you feel you have the right, and ability, to
participate in decisions and processes at the school? Whatever the answers to these
questions, it can be instructive. A sense of dis-belonging can signal problems and
spur change (May, 2011). Also, introspection about one’s own biases can help teach-
ers to resist giving deferential treatment to students based on unconscious biases,
a well-documented source of disbelonging for students (Ostermann, 2000). When
belonging is present, safety is created, allowing for students to bring their whole
selves to school.
Relationships with adults and peers in the school are central to a strong sense of
belonging for students. Educators can foster belonging by building trusting relation-
ships with students and creating environments where students can build such rela-
tionships among themselves, for example through cooperative learning and dialogue
(Brown, 2018; Ostermann, 2000). Educators can also promote belonging by support-
ing students in developing strong identities and sense of belonging to larger commu-
nities, such as those rooted in racial and ethnic identity (Berkel et al., 2010; Seaton
et al., 2011). Educators must be able to notice and address instances of interper-
sonal discrimination (Hamm et al., 2005), and sensitize themselves to the ways that
classroom environments can communicate (dis)belonging in the absence of explicit
discrimination, for example due to preferential treatment, ability sorting, or materi-
1 3
199
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
als in which the cultural backgrounds of students are not represented. Practices that
address these issues include including community circles and other structures that
oer equal time for all to talk, inclusive practices that integrate students of diering
abilities into the same activities, and bringing examples, speakers, and materials from
the families and lives of students (Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015; Gonzalez, Moll, &
Ananti, 2006).
Healing schools must build belonging into their structures, policies, and norms.
Reliance on traditional community building activities like sports, pep rallies, and
science fairs can sometimes ignore the diversity of the school and communicate that
belonging comes through assimilation. Healing schools need to promote belonging
based on a pluralistic framework in which community is built through a multiplicity
of school identities, access points, and opportunities to participate (Rosaldo, 1994).
Meanwhile, harsh disciplinary policies can communicate that students are disposable
and always at risk of being excluded. Alternative disciplinary policies are needed
that are designed around inclusion rather than exclusion, that privilege relationships
over punishment, and that are understood by students as fair (Ma, 2003; Morrison,
2006). Other policies and systems that promote the right to belong include inclusive
educational opportunities for students with disabilities and English emergent students
(Theoharis & Brooks, 2012); detracking (Ostermann, 2000); dual language instruc-
tion (Torres-Guzmán, 2007); giving students real responsibilities in school (Ellis et
al., 2016); and hiring educators who represent the diversity of the school and them-
selves feel they belong (Gershenson et al., 2017).
For students to truly feel they belong at a school, that belonging must extend to
families and the broader communities of which they are a part. Creating welcoming
environments inside schools, honoring families’ cultures and assets, fostering authen-
tic school decision making by families, and engaging family members as partners all
help to extend belonging to the wider school community. In addition, having school
sta leave school walls to engage in the broader community (home visits, attending
sports events, etc.) helps to foster a reciprocal connection and demonstrate that the
school belongs in the community as well (Dantas & Manyak, 2011). Finally, schools
must be attentive to the larger structures of belonging and dis-belonging in soci-
ety that impact students, often in harmful and traumatic ways. Engaging students in
learning about and confronting oppressions in school and community through critical
pedagogies and real-world learning can build resilience among students, contribute
to improving conditions, and build a sense of their right to belong, without assimi-
lating or changing who they are (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Freire, 1972;
Ginwright, 2016).
Agency
Finally, healing schools create conditions for all to experience a sense of agency. By
agency, we mean “the capacity to act in the world as intentional, meaning-making
beings, whose actions are shaped and constrained, but never fully determined by
life circumstances” (Finn, 2016, p. 38). When individuals experience agency, they
feel empowered to create, change, and transform the world around them — to be
“contributors to their life circumstances, not just products of them” (Bandura, 2006,
1 3
200
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
p. 164). A feeling of agency has been shown to promote engagement, motivation,
self-worth, sense of belonging, and hope among students and educators. When needs
for agency are not met, feelings of powerlessness are associated with disengage-
ment, anger, depression, and hopelessness (Finnigan & Gross, 2007; Ginwright,
2016; Toshalis Nakkula, 2012). There is a growing body of literature that critiques
the urban education system for limiting student agency and viewing it negatively in
terms of resistance (Fine & Ruglis, 2009).
Educators can begin with an understanding of their own power and agency, as well
as how that agency is impacted by the systems of power around them; where they
feel empowered or powerless (Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015). School systems can
be constraining spaces for educators, particularly given recent trends in increased
control and accountability. However, despite their hierarchical structure, leadership
in urban schools is highly distributed across actors and actions and there are many
large and small ways for individual educators to take on leadership roles in the urban
education of students and the improvement of schools (Harris & Muijis, 2004). While
not individually empowered to make school-wide decisions, educators have access
to relational “power with” others in the school and can tap into their personal agency
through collective engagement (Vaandering, 2013).
Educators can support student agency in their schools, communities, and society
at large. At its most basic, supporting student agency is about providing students
with choice: supporting students in dening their educational goals, problem-solving
solutions to challenges they face, and having ownership over decisions impacting
their future. It is also about giving students authentic choice in how classrooms are
run, and how they want to be in community, for example having students involved in
deciding what to do when norms are broken and how the classroom community can
be restored. When students experience this kind of power, control, and authority in
their learning, a sense agency is fostered and meaningful student involvement in the
school community is encouraged (Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015). As students grow
and expand their understanding of the world, teachers can support students in critiqu-
ing their schools and communities, imagining new possibilities, and taking action on
things they care about, through processes such as critical pedagogy and participatory
action research (Cammarotta & Fine, 2008; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Mol-
loy, 2019).
At the school level, agency is advanced through structures and practices of shared
leadership and student voice. Shared leadership among adults in the school can take
many forms — teacher teams, shared governance, action research teams, etc. — but
at heart is about sharing power and building the capacity of all to work together to
foster change. This allows the school to leverage the diversity of its sta to bring mul-
tiple perspectives, knowledge sources, and approaches to bear (Darling-Hammond
& Friedlaender, 2008). The inclusion of students in school leadership and decision
making is equally important as a way of centering student experiences, perspectives,
needs, and dreams in school change, and as a way of supporting civic engagement and
resilience. Student voice eorts run the gamut, from eorts to listen to students prior
to decision making, to forms of student-adult collaboration, to student-led eorts at
school change (Mitra, 2008). While formal structures such as student councils are
the most recognized forms of student voice, work in RJ and youth organizing have
1 3
201
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
opened up dierent structures of student leadership that can engage more students in
authentic ways (Mitra, 2008; Warren & Mapp, 2011).
Finally, healing schools invest in engagement eorts that situate families as leaders
and decision makers in our schools (Warren et al., 2015; Epstein et al., 2018). Fami-
lies have a wealth of knowledge, skills, and assets to bring to the work of improving
schools, which is unleashed when parents are able to access power and collaborate
equitably with educators (Warren & Mapp, 2011). In our low-wealth communities,
communities of color, and immigrant communities, such eorts must overcome a
range of barriers including cultural dierences, biases, broken trust, and a lack of
opportunities to build the capacity to collaborate eectively (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013;
Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2004). Again, students can be central to this work, through
intergenerational eorts to critique and transform our schools and communities.
Enacting the Framework: Critical Reection
The ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) proposed here situates relation-
ships, safety, belonging, and agency at the heart of a healing school. We have explic-
itly stayed away from proposing specications for reform or a set of prescribed
programs or practices for healing schools, though we mentioned some of the many
possibilities. Healing schools will necessarily look very dierent based on their spe-
cic contexts, communities, and histories allowing for system t to be at the core of
school reform (Gherardi et al., 2020). Instead, we propose an approach to implemen-
tation based on the adoption of, and collective action/reection in pursuit of, key val-
ues. A full explication of how values-based implementation of this framework can be
carried out is beyond the scope of this article, and will be the topic of future research.
However, we do need to mention one indispensable aspect of this implementation:
critical reection.
Enacting this framework must begin with educators engaging in critical reection
around the four values. By critical reection, we mean a “structured, analytical, and
emotional process that helps us examine the ways in which we make meaning of cir-
cumstances, events, and situations” (Finn, 2016, p. 363). Critical reection needs to
involve an investigation of our own values, experiences, and assumptions, as well as
the spiritual, social, and political forces that shape our decisions (Ginwright, 2016).
In essence, critical reection encourages us to question taken-for-granted assump-
tions of how things ought to be — what is normal — and opens up new possibilities
for thought and action (Freire, 1972). While this deep reection may be uncomfort-
able and lead to the need to unlearn some learned behaviors and responses (Hendry,
2009), this awareness can build the capacity to change in educators and support the
creation of a healing school.
We oer critical questioning as a key tool to scaold this work (Finn, 2016).
Reection through questioning serves as a metacognitive mechanism (Karpov &
Haywood, 1998) that educators can use to articulate principles of practice and a
vision for a healing school. Hendry (2009) promotes the use of open questions to
develop self-awareness which is “your ability to monitor and evaluate your own atti-
tudes and behaviors, and your awareness of the impact that these have on others”
(p. 113). Further, questioning can allow us to develop a deeper understanding of our
1 3
202
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
interactions with others, the political and historical dimensions of urban education,
and our role in the reproduction of power dierentials — all necessary explorations
providing us with the means to act upon our reections (Evans & Vaandering, 2016;
Homan-Kipp et al., 2003).
As a scaold for beginning this process, we present the healing schools frame-
work in the chart below as a set of interlocking questions. These questions are not
comprehensive, but point to the key areas of work for educators, as well as topics for
future research. While many of these questions on their own have been the subject of
signicant scholarship and action, we argue that it is only when asked together that
they can lead to a coherent and holistic approach to transforming schools.
Future Directions
This is an integrative model that we are proposing. Further study is needed to
understand the perspectives of all school partners (teachers, school administrators,
students, families, and communities) and ways in which the values could be incor-
porated. This understanding would allow for those providing professional develop-
ment to better address needs of the school and to weave the concepts together into
an integrated whole-school model based on relationship-supportive values that foster
healing and justice. Additionally, we recognize that these interdisciplinary perspec-
tives from social work, psychology, and education are derived from the work we have
done alongside urban schools and would benet from the integrated voice of teach-
ers, sta, administrators, students, parents, and community stakeholders as we begin
to implement these values.
At the end of each day, we urge adults, parents, and communities in schools to
reect on your experiences and encounters. See what each has to teach you about
the culture of your school. Then consider as a whole school how this understanding
relates to creating a healing school. By engaging in critical reection you are accept-
ing responsibility for your part in creating a healing school. By doing this work of
understanding and building schools around the values of relationship, safety, belong-
ing, and agency, you begin to close the gaps between you, your assumptions, your
needs and those of those around you, and your actions–it can give you a much more
complete understanding of “what is” and lead to informed decisions and actions that
heal.
Funding Open access funding provided by SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium
Declarations
Conict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conict of
interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
1 3
203
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use
is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Alexander, J. C., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B., Smelser, N. J., & Sztompka, P. (2004). Cultural trauma and
collective identity. Univ of California Press.
Alisic, E. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on providing support to children after trauma: A qualitative study.
School Psychology Quarterly, 27(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028590.
Allen, K. A., & Bowles, T. (2012). Belonging as a guiding principle in the education of adolescents. Aus-
tralian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 12, 108–119.
Amstutz, L., Canazaro, S., Galkowski, L., Nutter, M., Riese, J., & Rush, L. (2018). Establishing a restor-
ative mindset: Considerations for adults in schools (White Paper). Center for Safe Schools and High-
mark Foundation.
Armster, M. E., & Amstutz, L. E. (2008). Conict transformation and restorative justice manual: Founda-
tions and skills for mediation and facilitation. Mennonite Central Committee.
Bahena, S., Cooc, N., Currie-Rubin, R., Kuttner, P., & Ng, M. (Eds.). (2012). Disrupting the school-to-
prison pipeline. Harvard Education Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a Psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x.
Banks, J. (1989). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. Banks, & C. Banks (Eds.), Mul-
ticultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 17–21.
Baumeister, R., Leary, M., & Steinberg, R. J. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attach-
ments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497–529. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Berkel, C., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., Tein, J. Y., Roosa, M. W., Gonzales, N. A., & Saenz, D. (2010).
Discrimination and adjustment for Mexican American adolescents: A prospective examination of the
benets of culturally related values. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 893–915. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00668.x.
Bintli, A. V. (2011). Re-Engaging Disconnected Youth: Transformative Learning through Restorative
and Social Justice Education. Adolescent Cultures, School and Society. Volume 51. New York: Peter
Lang.
Bonnie, R. J., Stroud, C., & Breiner, H. (Eds.). (2014). Investing in the health and well-being of young
adults. Washington, DC, US: National Academies Press.
Boyes-Watson, C., & Pranis, K. (2015). Circle Forward: Building a restorative school community. St.
Paul, MN: Living Justice Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child develop-
ment: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187–249). London, England: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Brown, M. A. (2018). Creating restorative schools: Setting schools up to succeed. St. Paul, MN: Living
Justice Press.
Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1974). Rape : victims of crisis. R. J. Brady Co.
Cammarotta, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Youth participatory action research. Revolutionizing education: Youth
participatory action research in motion, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218533.n733.
Carter, R. T. (2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing race-based
traumatic stress. Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 13–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006292033.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). About adverse childhood experiences Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/about_ace.html.
Christensen, A. (2009). Belonging and unbelonging from an intersectional perspective. Gender Technol-
ogy and Development, 13(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240901300102.
1 3
204
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Creating and advocating for trauma-sensi-
tive schools. Massachusetts Advocates for Children. Retrieved from: https://www.traumasensitive-
schools.org.
Dantas, M. L., & Manyak, P. C. (Eds.). (2011). Home-school connections in a multicultural society:
Learning from and with culturally and linguistically diverse families. Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools. Educational
Leadership, 65(8), 14.
Diaz, E. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2009). Shared dierences: The experiences of lesbian. gay, bisexual, and
transgender students of color in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
Drewery, W. (2016). Restorative practice in New Zealand schools: Social development through relational
justice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.20
14.989951.
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2008). In E. Morrell (Ed.), The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from
theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Dworkin, A. G. (2009). Teacher burnout and teacher resilience: Assessing the impacts of the school
accountability movement. International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 491–
502). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_32.
Ellis, B. J., Volk, A. A., Gonzalez, J. M., & Embry, D. D. (2016). The meaningful roles intervention: An
evolutionary approach to reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of research on
adolescence, 26(4), 622–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12243.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Hutchins,
D. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press.
Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering respon-
sibility, healing, and hope in schools. New York: Good Books.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & Koss, M.
P. (1998). Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading
Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.04.001.
Fine, M., & Ruglis, J. (2009). Circuits and consequences of dispossession: The racialized realign-
ment of the public sphere for U.S. youth. Transforming Anthropology, 17(1), 20–33. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1548-7466.2009.01037.x.
Finn, J. L. (2016). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions inuence teacher motivation?
Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools? American Educational Research Journal, 44(3),
594–630. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306767.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Gershenson, S., Hart, C., Lindsay, C., & Papageorge, N. W. (2017). The long-run impacts of same-race
teachers. Institute of Labor Economics.
Gherardi, S. A., Flinn, R. E., & Jaure, V. B. (2020). Trauma-Sensitive Schools and Social Justice: A Criti-
cal Analysis. Urban Review, 52, 482–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00553-3.
Ginwright, S. A. (2010). Black youth rising: Activism and radical healing in urban America. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Ginwright, S. A. (2016). Hope and healing in urban education: How urban activists and teachers are
reclaiming matters of the heart. New York: Routledge.
Ginwright, S. A. (2018). The future of healing: Shifting from trauma informed care to healing centered
engagement Retrieved from https://medium.com/@ginwright/the-future-of-healing-shifting-from-
trauma-informed-care-to-healing-centered-engagement-634f557ce69c.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, Luis, C., & Amanti, C. (2006). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in House-
holds, Communities, and Classrooms. (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education).
New York. NY: Routledge.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to aca-
demic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1),
60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831.
Greenwald, R. (2005). Child trauma handbook: A guide for helping trauma-exposed children and adoles-
cents. New York: The Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.
1 3
205
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Hamm, J., Faircloth, B., & Way, N. (2005). The role of friendship in adolescents’ sense of school belong-
ing. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 107, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cd.121.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Improving schools through teacher leadership. McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).
Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and recovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Hendry, R. (2009). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools: A guide to using restorative
practice. London: Routledge.
Hidalgo, N. M. (1993). Multicultural teacher introspection. In T. Perry, & J. W. Fraser (Eds.), Freedom’s
plow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 99–105). New York: Routledge.
Homan-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & López-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reection: Teacher learning as praxis.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_12.
Joseph, A., Hnilica, R. J., & Hanson, M. (2021). Using restorative practices to reduce racially dispro-
portionate school suspensions: The barriers school leaders should consider during the rst year of
implementation. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 20 (2). Retrieved from https://digi-
talscholarship.unlv.edu/taboo/vol20/iss2/6.
Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 53(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.27.
Kline, D. (2016). Can Restorative Practices Help to Reduce Disparities in School Discipline Data? A
Review of the Literature. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210
960.2016.1159099.
Knight, D., & Wadhwa, A. (2014). Expanding opportunity through critical restorative justice: Portraits of
resilience at the individual and school level. Schools: Studies in Education, 11(1), 11–33. https://doi.
org/10.1086/675745.
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C., Wong, M., & Layne, C. M.
(2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, rst responders, health care,
juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 396–404. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396.
Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J. S.
Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and eective education: An
administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 25–39). Baltimore, MD, England: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American educational
research journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African American students.
Journal of teacher education, 51(3), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003008.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). July). Three Decades of Culturally Relevant, Responsive, & Sustaining Peda-
gogy: What Lies Ahead? The Educational Forum (85 vol., pp. 351–354). Routledge. 4.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2004). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from
each other. Ballantine Books.
Leana, C. R. (2011). The Missing Link in School Reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 30–35.
https://doi.org/10.48558/T2GN-2980.
Llewellyn, J. J., Archibald, B. P., Clairmont, D., & Crocker, D. (2013). Imagining success for a restor-
ative approach to justice: Implications for measurement and evaluation. Dalhousie Law Journal, 36,
281–315.
Ma, X. (2003). Sense of Belonging to School: Can Schools Make a Dierence? The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 96(6), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596617.
Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-
school partnerships. Southwest Educational Development Lab.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
May, V. (2011). Self, Belonging and Social Change. Sociology, 45(3), 363–378.
May, S., & Sleeter, C. E. (Eds.). (2010). Critical multiculturalism: Theory and praxis. Routledge.
McIntyre, E. M., Baker, C. N., Overstreet, S., & New Orleans Trauma-Informed Schools Learning Col-
laborative. (2019). Evaluating foundational professional development training for trauma-informed
approaches in schools. Psychological services, 16(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000312.
Milner, H. (2011). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in a Diverse Urban Classroom. Urban Review, 43,
66–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0143-0.
1 3
206
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Mitra, D. L. (2008). Student voice in school reform: Building youth-adult partnerships that strengthen
schools and empower youth (pp. 727–744). State University of New York.
Molloy, J. (2019). Embedding youth participatory action research in the implementation of critical restor-
ative justice in schools. Youth Voice Journal, ISSN (online): 2969.
Morrison, B. (2006). School Bullying and Restorative Justice: Toward a Theoretical Understanding
of the Role of Respect, Pride, and Shame. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 371–392. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00455.x.
Morrison, B., & Vaandering, V. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline. Journal of
School Violence, 11(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2011.653322.
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2013). Conversations about historical trauma: Part one
Retrieved from https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/les/assets/pdfs/conversations_about_histori-
cal_trauma_part_one.pdf.
National Children’s Advocacy Center (2018). History Retrieved from https://www.nationalcac.org/
history/.
Nieto, S. (2004). Arming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). Allyn
and Bacon.
Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ Need for Belonging in the School Community. Review of Educational
Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Parrett, W., & Budge, K. M. (2012). Turning high-poverty schools into high-performing schools. Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.
Phillips, D. A., & Shonko, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science ofearly
childhood development. National Academies Press.
Randall, M., & Haskell, L. (2013). Restorative Justice: Trauma-Informed Approaches to Law: Why
Restorative Justice Must Understand Trauma and Psychological Coping. Dalhousie Law Journal,
36, 501–581.
Reimer, K. (2015). Restorative justice as a window into relationships: Student experiences of social con-
trol and social engagement in Scotland and Canada. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Canada.
Rosaldo, R. (1994). Cultural Citizenship and Educational Democracy. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 402–411.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/656372https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1994.9.3.02a00110.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America.
Liveright Publishing.
Ryan, R., Deci, E., Fowler, R. D., Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Self-Determination
Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Saul, J. (2013). Collective trauma, collective healing: Promoting community resilience in the aftermath of
disaster (48 vol.). Routledge.
Seaton, E. K., Neblett, E. W., Upton, R. D., Hammond, W. P., & Sellers, R. M. (2011). The moderat-
ing capacity of racial identity between perceived discrimination and psychological well-being
over time among African American youth. Child Development, 82(6), 1850–1867. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01651.x.
Siegel, D., & Solomon, M. (2003). Healing trauma: Attachment, mind, body, and brain (1st ed.). New
York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Skiba, E., Mediratta, K., & Rausch, M. K. (2016). Inequality in school discipline. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Smith, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Better Than Carrots or Sticks: Restorative Practices for Positive
Classroom Management. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (2003). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race,
class, and gender (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Straus, M. (2016). Treating Trauma in Adolescents. Development, Attachment, and the.
Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinc-
tion in dening physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of health care for the
poor and underserved, 9(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233.
Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). What every principal needs to know to create equitable and excel-
lent schools (1st ed.). Teachers College Press. New York.
1 3
207
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Torres-Guzmán, M. E. (2007). Dual language programs: Key features and results. Bilingual education and
bilingualism, 61, 50.
Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Boston, MA: Jobs for
the Future.
US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guid-
ance for a trauma-informed approach.
Vaandering, D. (2011). A faithful compass: Rethinking the term restorative justice to nd clarity. Contem-
porary Justice Review, 14(3), 307–328.
Vaandering, D. (2013). Student, teacher, and administrator perspectives on harm: Implications for imple-
menting safe and caring school initiatives. Review of Education Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 35(4),
298–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2013.825514.
Vavrus, M. J. (2002). Transforming the multicultural education of teachers: Theory, research, and practice
(12 vol.). Teachers College Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Suny
Press.
Wadhwa, A. (2016). Restorative justice in urban schools: Disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. New
York: Routledge.
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.
Walton, G., Cohen, G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and
Achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school
reform. Oxford University Press.
Warren, M. R., Mapp, K., & Kuttner, P. J. (2015). From private citizens to public actors: The development
of parent leaders through community organizing. In M. Evans & D. Hiatt-Michael (Eds.), The power
of community engagement for educational change. Information Age Publishing.
Whiteld, C. L. (1998). Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 14, 361–363.
Williams, V., Deane, F., Oades, L., Crowe, T., Ciarrochi, J., & Andresen, R. (2016). A cluster- randomised
controlled trial of values-based training to promote autonomously held recovery values in mental
health workers. Implementation Science, 11(13), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0363-5.
Wingspread Declaration on School Connections (2004). Journal of School Health, 74(7), 233–234.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural
wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.
Zehr, H. (2005). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (3rd ed.). Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada: Herald Press.
Zurbriggen, E., Gobin, R., & Kaehler, L. (2012). Trauma, Attachment, and Intimate Relationships. Journal
of Trauma & Dissociation, 13(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.642762.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional aliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and appli-
cable law.
1 3
208
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The Urban Review (2024) 56:186–209
Authors and Aliations
Uma DornParameswaran1· JenniferMolloy2· PaulKuttner3
Uma Dorn Parameswaran
uma.dorn@utah.edu
Jennifer Molloy
jen.molloy@umontana.edu
Paul Kuttner
paul.kuttner@partners.utah.edu
1 University of Utah, 1825 Campus Center Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
2 University of Montana, 012 Jeannette Rankin Hall 32 Campus Dr MS 4392, Missoula,
MT 59812, USA
3 University Neighborhood Partners, University of Utah, Lake City, USA
1 3
209
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... For instance, learning about the circumstances surrounding behaviors may help educators situate the behaviors within girls' family or community culture and reflect on how their own cultural norms might bias their view. Educators might also learn about physical or psychological needs precipitating girls' behaviors, potentially indicating the need for a healing-centered or trauma-informed approach focused on creating a sense of safety, belonging, and SEL competence (Parameswaran, Molloy, and Kuttner 2023). Educators may come to understand that girls' behavior reflects typical patterns in adolescent development, thus avoiding misattributions of agency (Lamboy, Taylor, and Thompson 2020). ...
... However, it is important to consider that educators operate in systems designed according to punitive frameworks, wherein discipline involves an authority figure unilaterally determining broken rules and punishments (Parameswaran, Molloy, and Kuttner 2023). With an emphasis on consolidating power and assigning blame, there is little room to acknowledge or address the complexities of human behavior described by the girls in our sample. ...
... RETHINKING BEHAVIORAL REASSIGNMENT 3 disabilities in urban school systems (Blitz et al., 2020), the framework draws specifically on trauma-informed principles integrated into restorative justice (e.g., Parameswaran et al., 2024). This approach includes an array of education and services focused on helping students develop their emotional awareness, regulation, and response to heal and manage the psychosocial responses created by their experiences of trauma (e.g., Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014;Walker, 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Growing evidence over the last few decades has highlighted that punitive approaches in schools perpetuate violence, furthering inequities, deepening issues of safety, and negatively impacting young people’s development. These impacts are particularly felt in underresourced urban schools situated in contexts of community violence. Partially, in response, an increasing number of schools and school districts are engaging in restorative practices. This trauma-informed, strengths-based framework focuses on relationships, healing, and accountability. This article contributes to the growing literature on the potential of restorative justice to promote equity in urban schools and educational systems by outlining the development and model of a restorative alternative to the behavioral reassignment schools’ model that has been used in Milwaukee Public Schools. We describe how this initiative, the Milwaukee Public Schools Success Center (SC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, employs a restorative framework to intervene with high-risk students with holistic, supportive, and healing-centered strategies. The model focuses on addressing student needs to move beyond pathologizing “at-risk” youth in urban contexts and truly support their thriving. In the article, we detail the background and conceptualization of the SC, examine how the tenets of restorative philosophy are infused throughout the SC, and illustrate key elements with examples. We situate the SC within the broader literature on ecological systems, development, and peacebuilding. This foundation is operationalized concretely through three main goals across socioecological levels: student empowerment and psychosocial well-being (individual-level), relationship building (interpersonal- and communal-level), and addressing racial gaps and inequities in education (systemic-level). Each of these levels draws on research and theory about building cultures of peace through schools as part of an ecological systems approach. The goals are intentionally not centered on behavior change; instead, they situate behaviors and attitudes that are often seen as problematic within social–emotional dynamics across levels, applying an ecological perspective on risk and resilience for urban students. The article ends with lessons learned that may be applicable in other settings, as well as our next steps in the process of evaluating the efficacy of this initiative. We present this model not as one to be copied directly to other settings but rather to be reimagined within the particular social, cultural, and local ecological contexts to effectively address trauma, distrust, and broken relationships that sustain inequities and cultural and structural violence in urban educational systems. Furthermore, the SC integrates repair and restoration with trauma-informed work to address the psychosocial needs of the urban students and families served in Milwaukee. To this end, it offers an extension for thinking about the role of trauma-informed practices at the intersection of development, peacebuilding, schools, and community violence. The SC and its restorative approach can offer a general framework for policymakers and educators who are interested in a more holistic and therapeutic approach to addressing individuals who are often termed “troubled” or “high-risk” students.
... This provides an opportunity to restore relationships within the community specifically, in schools, using through three components: (a) creating just and equitable learning environments, (b) nurturing healthy relationships, and (c) repairing harm and transforming conflict (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). As a result of interventions such as restorative questioning and community building circles, students are better able to understand and respond to harm, make inclusive decisions and use a forward focused approach thus increasing positive development outcomes (Parameswaran et al., 2024). ...
Article
Full-text available
Trauma has been named a public health concern due to its prevalence and long-lasting effects on its victims (Collins et al., 2010). Consequently, the popularity and ability to enhance youth development through sport is becoming a notable field where trauma-responsive practices should be applied. Utilizing Trauma Matters Delaware’s (2021) organizational transition to the trauma-responsiveness continuum, the researchers explored six administrators’ and coaches’ experiences around their professional training in trauma responsiveness within a sport for development program. Researchers identified six themes from the interviews which were then aligned with the trauma-responsiveness continuum: (a) Understanding Challenges (Awareness); (b) Inspirational Mentorship (Sensitive); (c) Consistent, Deliberate Training Content (Sensitive); (d) Safety (Responsive); (e) Connection and Longevity (Responsive); and (f) Community Engagement (Informed). Recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, and trauma-informed instructors to utilize within other sport-based trauma-informed programs.
... Responsive approaches may entail less formal restorative conversations and chats or peer mediation systems (Lodi et al., 2021;Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Importantly, there is much nuance and diversity in implementation, and many theorists argue that whole school models with shifts in mindset are needed for effective and authentic restorative schools (Gregory et al., 2020;Parameswaran et al., 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
Harnessing educational contexts to build equitable and just societies requires attention to young people’s meaning-making and development. The end goals of such efforts inherently extend beyond the schools themselves to include the skills, orientations, and values youth bring to their lives outside and after school. Additionally, interventions and programs that are meant to be supportive may not be experienced in that way by students. These foci are essential for better understanding the potential of school restorative justice, a growing movement in schools across the world. In this article, I define school restorative justice, review literature on its potential, and then make a case for a developmental perspective on how it might shape young people’s lives and identities. Specifically, I apply the framework of conceptualized peace to argue for attention to how young people interpret, respond to, and build identities in relation to these experiences. The results are consequential because this framework highlights deeper impacts on students, as well as the reasons young people may or may not engage with them.
... Both in theory and in practice, MCAA maximizes protective and promotive factors to build student resilience based on their capacity to grow and develop as adolescents and young adults who can fully participate in a community of engaged learners (McCabe & Anhalt, 2021). These conditions are exemplified by MCAA's implementation of trauma-informed curriculum and restorative justice practices (Parameswaran et al., 2023); staffing to address students' social-emotional needs (Brown et al., 2021), and pre-service training to ensure student wellbeing (Jones et al., 2021). Moreover, MCAA has created a school environment that allows students to feel seen and represented and ultimately, a space that creates conditions to promote community (Steck & Perry, 2018). ...
Article
Amid today's polycrisis—marked by global violence, chaos, and uncertainty—there is an urgent imperative for healing. In this reimagined presidential address, I advocate for centering justice and joy as powerful forces for healing, which is a core value of the Society of Counseling Psychology (SCP). I share SCP's yearlong activities exploring personal and collective healing. Drawing from interdisciplinary research, critical dialogue, and my experiences co-teaching a course on this topic, I introduce a framework outlining six healing ingredients of joy: deep connection, existential recognition, flow, shared beliefs and actions, radical hope, and self-determination/freedom/liberation. Before presenting this framework, I examine Black joy as a counter to the epistemic violence that often erases the contributions of Black scholars. The proposed new framework portrays joy not only as a personal emotion, but as a collective assertion of humanity. I conclude with recommendations to advance healing practices in research, training, and practice.
Article
Restorative justice has become a widely used intervention in urban schools to address the ways that students of color and students with disabilities disproportionately face punitive disciplinary action. As such, understanding the perspectives of teachers of these students is of the utmost importance. Using Dis/ability Critical Race Studies as a theoretical framework, this interpretivist interview study centers the perspectives of three special education teachers as restorative justice is implemented at a predominantly Black urban school. This work has implications for more culturally relevant implementation of restorative justice. It also highlights the ways that race and disability impact school culture.
Article
Full-text available
The creation of trauma-sensitive schools has become an increasingly central focus of school reform and urban school reform in particular. While these initiatives have been framed as social justice imperatives, this framing warrants critique. This critical analysis surveys the history, models, and documented outcomes of trauma-sensitive approaches in K-12 education. Special attention is given to gaps in existing frameworks which lead to a decontextualized understanding of disproportionality, an apolitical conception of schools, and a deficit orientation toward families and communities. The authors advocate for the integration of social justice education into frameworks for trauma-sensitive schools as an initial step toward addressing these issues.
Article
Purpose: As the implementation of restorative justice in educational settings proliferates around the world, researchers and practitioners alike are trying to determine what factors influence implementation that furthers the creation of a just and equitable learning environment. This paper explores the important role that critical Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR)—a youth-driven method of research with values that align with restorative justice—can provide schools interested in implementing critical restorative justice. For restorative justice to challenge the structural inequalities of our social institutions, innovative approaches to implementation that radically transform power relations within the institutional and community contexts are needed. YPAR offers one possible tool for recodification of power relations in the school context. Design/methodology/approach: This paper explores the current literature on the implementation of restorative justice in educational settings and the benefits of YPAR for students, school culture change initiatives, and social justice more broadly. Findings: Implementing critical restorative justice in schools with the support of a YPAR project could provide all students—and especially students from marginalized communities—an opportunity to name and critique injustice, to have a voice in the implementation process, and to take action to shift the cultures within their schools. Originality/value: There has been little discussion of the role students can play in the restorative justice implementation process to date. However, successful enactment of restorative justice may be possible by engaging youth in critical inquiry about the conditions of their schools and empowering them to imagine how a restorative culture can be cultivated.