![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
We explored the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), race, and the likelihood of receiving a call home for problems at school. Childhood adversities are associated with emotional dysregulation, somatic effects, cognitive impairment, behavioral difficulties, and difficulty establishing trusting relationships. In schools that are not trauma-informed, students who have experienced adversity may be seen as defiant and disruptive rather than exhibiting adaptations to challenges. Given the well-documented persistence of racially inequitable school discipline practices and outcomes, we applied Critical Race Theory (CRT) and posited that students of color (SOC) who have experienced ACEs are at greatest risk for school discipline which starts with educator surveillance (the disciplinary gaze).
Methods
Using data from the 2017-2018 National Survey of Children’s Health, we examined differences in the attention educators give to students holding four or more ACEs. Using STATA 15.1, logistic regression was used to examine racial differences related to the odds that teachers call students’ homes for problems within school. Our research questions were (1) are schools more likely to call the homes of SOC who have experienced ACEs, for problems exhibited at school? (2) What ACEs within race significantly predict a call home for problems?
Data were drawn from a nationally representative sample (n=52,129). Our sample compares students across race ages 6-17 with four or more ACEs (n=2,692) to students without ACEs (n=2,065). Males represented 2,230 students and females represented 2,527. SOC with four or more ACEs accounted for 818 participants while White students accounted for n=1,874. In total, 1,148 received at least one call home for problems exhibited in school.
Results
Holding White students with four or more ACEs as the comparison group, there were significantly less odds that White students without four or more ACEs would receive a call home for problems school (β= -.271, p = .012). There is no significant difference in the odds of a call home for problems between SOC without four of more ACEs and White students with four or more ACEs (β = .132, p = .326). SOC with four or more ACEs had significantly greater odds of receiving a call home for problems than White students with four or more ACEs. Within race analyses also revealed that different ACEs were related to a call home for each student group. In both models, we held constant behavioral problems, ADD and ADHD diagnosis, receiving free school meals, and having anxiety.
Conclusion
Experiencing four or more ACEs significantly increases the odds of a phone call home for problems at school for all students. However, SOC were more likely to receive a call home than their White peers. We applied critical race theory and the concept of the disciplinary gaze to posit that whiteness shielded White students who are coping with experiences of adversity from educator surveillance. Further research is needed to understand the complex, intersectional interactions between race and specific forms of adversity that led to calls home for each student sub-group. Recommendations for school social workers to provide anti-racist, trauma-informed practices are discussed.