Attention to childhood trauma and the need for trauma-informed care has contributed to the emerging discourse in schools related to teaching practices, school climate, and the delivery of trauma-related in-service and preservice teacher education. However, though trauma-informed systems of care include schools, empirical work informing trauma-informed teaching and teacher education that is reflected back to those audiences is less established. This interdisciplinary overview and synthesis of literature examined interventions used in schools to determine the dominant framework used for promoting and practicing trauma-informed care in schools and the effectiveness of school-based supports for trauma-affected youth to identify implications for changing teaching practice. While multiple disciplines conduct research using different methodologies examining trauma-informed practices in schools, educators are underexamined in this work. Additionally, education researchers began engaging in research on trauma-informed practices in schools more recently, and as such, research emanating from education researchers comprises a small portion of this review. Drawing across the work, we offer recommendations for a more robust, interdisciplinary research agenda with the intentional purpose to change teacher practice.

In the current era of accountability for achievement, school principals play the pivotal role of instructional leader. In a high-stakes testing environment, leadership preparation programs in universities and school districts need to be positively related to academic outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between school leadership preparation programs and student achievement in urban settings. Because leadership is contingent on the setting, school contextual factors and their impact on student achievement framed this study. Regression techniques were employed to construct a conceptual model with predictors of criterion and norm-referenced student achievement scores. Confirming previous research findings, student poverty, teacher experience, and previous achievement were the strongest predictors and accounted for a significant amount of variance in student achievement; however, university and district preparation programs were not significant predictors. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract