Shayla Harris

Introduction

There is an overlooked disability injustice occurring in inner-city classrooms across the country. Trauma-exposed youth displaying symptoms of psychological disabilities such as post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) and depression are met with punitive and carceral interventions instead of accommodation. Moreover, “although there have been a number of interventions developed for youth exposed to [domestic violence] and child maltreatment, there have been few evidence-based interventions that specifically target [community violence exposure].”¹ Community violence exposure engenders a distinct disability justice issue, specifically in the education setting. That is, trauma-exposed youth are too often left out of the free and appropriate education mandate. This Comment explores the prevalence of community violence-induced PTSS in disadvantaged school settings, tracing the impact community violence has on classroom behavior and performance. The Comment then critiques the existing framework for managing trauma-exposed youth in the educational setting, which relies on punishment and exclusion rather than accommodation and inclusion. Specifically, this Comment argues that the school-to-prison pipeline is a disability justice issue—children with PTSS are being punished for the symptoms of their disabilities, and in turn, being funneled into the criminal legal system. After critiquing predominant mechanisms for managing trauma-exposed youth in classrooms, this Comment explores the feasibility of using the existing disability framework to address PTSS in education. More specifically, this Comment questions what children with PTSS are entitled to pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)’s promise of free appropriate public education. The paper then identifies obstacles preventing children with PTSS from accessing special education (SPED) services.

I. Trauma Exposure and the Brain

Neuropsychology has established that trauma exposure can alter children’s brains.² One study found that traumatic stress “damages the developing brain and impairs the ability for children to learn” by altering activity in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The hippocampus is a component of the brain involved in encoding and retrieving information, processes which are disrupted by trauma exposure. The study found that PTSS severity and prebedtime cortisol levels predicted a reduction in the volume of the hippocampus. The study also “found that children with PTSS showed reduced activation of the right hippocampus during memory retrieval compared with healthy children, as well as decreased retrieval accuracy on the verbal declarative memory task.”³ Not only does trauma exposure alter the part of the brain responsible for memory formation, but it also impacts the part of the brain that regulates executive functioning—the prefrontal cortex. In the study, children with PTSS showed a larger volume of gray matter in certain regions of the prefrontal cortex.⁴ Another study that researched the effects of community violence specifically found that “youth exposed to more community violence exhibit greater right amygdala reactivity to threat.”⁵ The amygdala is “linked to a host of neural processes,” including “social cognition, emotion[al] regulation,  …  memory formation,” and specifically “processing of fearful and unpleasant stimuli.”⁶ “Altered amygdala activation is associated with several related psychiatric outcomes, including depression and antisocial behavior.”⁷

In sum, trauma exposure is associated with changes in the developing brain. Such changes lead to a host of developmental and social challenges. Sustained trauma exposure often leads to difficulty identifying and regulating emotions, difficulty reacting to stimuli, and reduced cognition and attention.⁸ Children with complex trauma may have impulse control issues that lead to participation in high-risk behaviors. Trauma-exposed youth may appear aggressive, unpredictable, and detached.⁹ Complex trauma may manifest as post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because these two conditions are closely related,¹⁰ this Comment draws on research regarding both and has ramifications for youth impacted by either.

II. Community Violence

Trauma exposure is a pervasive and persistent problem in disadvantaged neighborhoods that have high levels of community violence. Community violence exposure engenders a distinct type of harm among youth that is associated with development of PTSD symptoms.¹¹ Studies estimate that between 75 percent and 90 percent of adolescents from urban settings have witnessed at least one act of violence in their neighborhoods.¹² In one study of “African American adolescents from economically disadvantaged communities, 95% of youth endorsed exposures to more than one violent event, 30% reported hearing gunshots in the community, 65% had seen someone being threatened by a weapon, and 54% reported that someone close to them was shot or attacked.”¹³ In light of this frequent exposure to violence, it is no wonder that inner-city youth experience PTSD at comparable rates to military combat veterans.¹⁴

Community violence and trauma exposure pose challenges for the education system. Because trauma alters the developing brain, youth who have experienced community violence are likely to have learning and social skill challenges. Educators need appropriate training and tools to support these youth and manage their classrooms. Unfortunately, in low-income school districts with high rates of community violence, this is not an isolated problem impacting a select few students. Rather, educators likely encounter several students dealing with PTSS and PTSD symptoms. Moreover, schools’ ability to support trauma-exposed youth and address their learning challenges depends on access to resources. Neighborhoods with high rates of community violence tend to fall in under-resourced school districts. The limited resources schools do have are invested in carceral entanglements rather than supportive services. Indeed, “14 million students are in schools with police but no counselor, nurse, psychologist, or social worker.”¹⁵

III. Punitive Approaches

Too often, trauma-exposed youth are disciplined for PTSS symptoms and stigmatized as disruptive. This approach not only excludes youth from full access to education, but it also puts them at greater risk of being swept up in the carceral state, or school-to-prison pipeline. The school-to-prison pipeline is a “trend wherein youth are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal legal systems.”¹⁶ This funneling occurs when educators and administrators rely heavily on punitive measures to manage classroom behavior rather than offering therapeutic interventions and supportive measures. Common disciplinary practices such as detention, suspension, and expulsion are in themselves associated with an increase in the likelihood of future arrest. For example, one study found that “[e]xperiencing any suspension during grades 7 through 12 significantly increases the logged odds of incarceration in young adulthood by 288%” even when controlling for socioeconomic status and other context-specific factors.¹⁷ In another study, “researchers found that 12 years after having been suspended, … suspended students were 30% more likely to have been arrested once, 51% more likely to have been arrested two or more times, 49% more likely to be on probation, and 23% more likely to be in prison than non-suspended students.” Studies have established that punitive disciplinary measures have grave long-term consequences potentially ensnaring the disciplined in a carceral web.

Moreover, the school-to-prison pipeline is fed by policies that bring police into schools where students are criminally charged for actions as banal as throwing a paper airplane or spraying perfume.¹⁸ Police may be directly relied upon as a source of discipline or may simply have more access and opportunity to surveil youth. Whereas exclusionary disciplinary practices such as suspension increase future risk of incarceration, police presence in schools introduces immediate or near-term risks of trauma-exposed youth being criminalized. Students at schools with a reported police presence experience a higher rate of arrest than students attending schools without such a presence.¹⁹ A 2017 report analyzing police presence at public schools across the U.S. in the 2013–2014 school year found that nearly 70,000 youth were arrested in that year.²⁰ Even in a year consisting primarily of remote learning, “[p]olice arrested more than 100 children at elementary schools during the 2020–2021 school year.”²¹

Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to the school-to-prison pipeline. In fact, a 2019 ACLU study found that “students with disabilities were nearly 3 times more likely to be arrested than students without disabilities, and the risk multiplied at schools with police.”²² Another source of nationwide disciplinary data published by the Department of Education similarly showed that in 2017–2018, “children with disabilities in elementary school were 4 times more likely to be arrested at school than those without disabilities.”²³ These studies rely on the disability classifications identified by IDEA, which do not include PTSD or PTSS specifically, but rather “emotional disturbance.” Because PTSD symptoms are underdiagnosed among youth, especially ethnic minorities,²⁴ trauma-exposed youth are left out of disability studies like these that rely on formal diagnosis. While more sociological research is needed to confirm the association between PTSS and school arrests, the available information suggests the criminalization of trauma-exposed youth is likely more pervasive than the data on disability captures. Two of the most common criminal charges for school arrests are “disrupting school” and “disorderly conduct.”²⁵ Because trauma-exposed youth struggle with impulse control and emotional regulation, they are particularly vulnerable to these charges. The punitive approach effectively renders symptoms the basis for criminal charges.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a piece of federal legislation that created public education mandates to ensure that students with disabilities are accommodated and able to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Pursuant to the IDEA, students with disabilities may be entitled to special education (SPED) services that enable them to receive educational benefits. To qualify for such supports, there must be a finding that the student meets the criteria for at least one of the learning-disabling conditions listed in the Act. The thirteen disability classifications include autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment.²⁶ Additionally, it must be established that the disability adversely affects educational performance, and because of the disability, the student needs “special education and related services.”²⁷

Importantly, to qualify for SPED, a child need not have an official diagnosis from a medical provider. Thus, children displaying PTSS symptoms who have not been officially diagnosed may still be eligible for an IEP. Of the thirteen disability classifications listed in the act, emotional disturbance is the most relevant to PTSS symptoms. According to the Act, “Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance:

(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.

(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.

(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.

(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.”²⁸

Comparing these characteristics with common PTSS symptoms reveals that many trauma-exposed youth likely meet the criteria for emotional disturbance. PTSS symptoms have deleterious consequences on a child’s learning ability, social skills, and mood regulation, potentially implicating each of the above characteristics. The overlap between PTSS symptoms and IDEA’s definition of emotional disturbance suggests that many youth, who are often subject to punitive measures, are, in fact, eligible for supportive measures. Not only are these students eligible, but the school also has an obligation to identify them in order to proactively offer supportive measures.²⁹

After a determination regarding the child’s eligibility is made, an individualized education plan (IEP) is created outlining the following: what the child can currently do, what the child will be able to do in one year’s time, goals in each area of need, what the school will provide to ensure progress on goals, and where the student will receive services.³⁰ An IEP is sufficient to fulfill a school’s FAPE obligations “when the state provides personalized instruction with sufficient services to permit a child with a disability to benefit educationally,” on a comparable grade level to the State’s regular education.³¹ “The IEP must have “a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to . . . enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs.”³²

To obtain an IEP, the parent of a child must initiate an initial evaluation to determine if the child meets one of the statutory definitions of a child with a disability. However, such an evaluation may also be initiated by the state or local educational agency. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1414. When there is disagreement related to the IEP “parents may turn to dispute resolution procedures established by the IDEA.”³³ These procedures include an informal “[p]reliminary meeting” and mediation.³⁴ “If these measures fail to produce accord, the parties may proceed to what the Act calls a ‘due process hearing’ before a state or local educational agency.”³⁵ At the conclusion of the administrative process, the losing party may seek redress in state or federal court.³⁶ “The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief,” whether that party be the student or the school district.³⁷ In determining whether an IEP complies with the IDEA, courts make a two-part inquiry. At the first step, courts examine whether there were procedural violations of the IDEA, namely, “whether the state has complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA.” Courts then examine whether the IEP was substantively adequate, namely, whether it was “‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit[s].’”³⁸ Relief is available for procedural violations that deny the student a FAPE, if parents are denied the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of the FAPE, or if the child has been deprived of educational benefits.³⁹

Receiving SPED services for emotional disturbance has the potential to help trauma-exposed youth in several key ways. The “related services” that may be spelled out in an IEP include counseling, social work, and psychological services.⁴⁰ Counseling services are “provided by qualified social workers, psychologists, guidance counselors, or other qualified personnel.”⁴¹ Psychological services include administering and interpreting educational assessments, consultating with other staff members to plan accommodation, providing psychological care, and identifying behavioral intervention strategies.⁴² Social work services include group or individual counseling with the child and their family, working in the child’s living situation, leveraging school and community resources, and identifying behavioral intervention strategies.⁴³

Research indicates that developing healthy coping mechanisms is instrumental to developing trauma symptoms in the aftermath of community violence. One study found “that exposure to [community violence] is associated with increased use of negative coping strategies,” even when controlling for other forms of violence exposure, such as family violence exposure.⁴⁴ Negative coping strategies, which include interpersonal aggression and self-destructive behaviors such as taking drugs or self-harming, “are themselves associated with a greater number of trauma symptoms.”⁴⁵ In other words, community violence exposure is associated with negative coping strategies, which only compound PTSS and PTSD symptoms. Therefore, “intervention efforts should strive to help youth develop alternative means of coping with community violence-related stressors.”⁴⁶ Trauma-informed social work and counseling services offer the opportunity for children to identify stressors and strategies for regulating emotions. School may be one of the only contexts where youth are given access to such support given that minority youth are both more likely to experience community violence,⁴⁷ and less likely to receive treatment for PTSD.⁴⁸

In sum, trauma-exposed youth may be statutorily entitled to supportive services from their schools. The related services that contribute to a FAPE have the potential to be transformative—if administered from a trauma-informed approach. Moreover, classification as a special education student creates some protection against disciplinary action. The school is prohibited from removing a special education student from their current academic placement for more than ten school days per school year.⁴⁹ If the suspension is longer than ten school days, the school must continue to provide special education and related services to that student.⁵⁰

IDEA’s Child Find provision creates an obligation on the state to identify and support children with disabilities.⁵¹ That is, technically speaking, the burden does not fall on the person with the disability to identify themselves as needing accommodation. However, the practical reality is that access to a FAPE often depends on parental involvement. There are a number of reasons why students experiencing post-traumatic stress might “fall through the cracks” despite the Child Find provision. Lack of educator training on how to identify PTSS and PTSD symptoms, paired with a lack of on-site mental health professionals, makes fulfilling Child Find obligations challenging, particularly in under-resourced districts that tend to have higher levels of community violence exposure. Racial bias and stereotyping may also impede educators’ ability to recognize post-traumatic stress.

Remedies under IDEA include a due process hearing appealable to the courts. It is unclear if a class action alleging failure to satisfy Child Find obligations would succeed. “Though class action litigation of special education claims has been left unhindered by statutory law, disfavor by some courts and policymakers of systemic challenges, and increasingly stringent requirements to form a representative class, have made it more difficult to bring such actions.”⁵² Thus, systemic violations of IDEA remain difficult to address through litigation.

IV. Obstacles to Implementing Disability Framework

While increased SPED services seem like a promising alternative to the current punitive regime, this approach is not without obstacles. Many of the same reasons for low PTSD treatment rates among minority populations may apply to accessing SPED services. Studies show that the reasons racial minorities seek treatment less frequently than their white counterparts include mistrust and perception of bias in care providers, mental illness stigmatization, and increased emphasis on familial support.⁵³ Each of these variables is more or less applicable to accessing SPED services, especially given that initial evaluation is only possible with parental consent.⁵⁴ Buy-in from both the child and their parents is necessary for SPED services to be an effective intervention. Destigmatizing special education and mental illness is critical for SPED services to emerge as an alternative to the punitive approach.

Some scholars have argued that the emotional disturbance category itself is insufficient to account for trauma exposure. The classification has been critiqued as vague, leading to diverging standards across districts. Another ground for criticism is that the emotional disturbance category excludes children who are “socially maladjusted,” which may effectively create a loophole.⁵⁵ It is also worth noting that the category of emotional disturbance is associated with the worst outcomes of all the disability classifications in terms of dropout and suspension rates.⁵⁶

Another potential obstacle to implementing the disability framework as it relates to PTSS is a regulation requiring states to “have in effect . . . policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with disabilities.”⁵⁷ Because community violence exposure and PTSS are more common amongst minorities, states may be concerned that an increase in the number of minority children receiving SPED services runs afoul of this provision.

The final problem that remains is resource distribution and access. Under a system where school funding is linked to property taxes, the schools with the highest community violence rates are likely to be under-resourced. Thus, providing counseling and social work services presents a budget problem. The sheer number of children displaying PTSS symptoms may also make it difficult to feasibly offer individualized care. For this reason, many have advocated for universal trauma-informed classroom practices.

Conclusion

Community violence exposure gives rise to a disability justice issue in the educational setting, where trauma-exposed youth are criminalized for PTSS symptoms. One alternative to the existing punitive approach is using the disability justice toolkit to administer SPED services to trauma-exposed youth. Trauma-informed social work services can assist youth in developing positive coping strategies. Moreover, identification as a special education student comes with some disciplinary protections. This disability-focused approach seems favorable compared to the existing punitive regime. However, there are significant obstacles in leveraging the disability framework to support trauma-exposed youth. Namely, destigmatizing special education and mental illness is critical for all children to receive a FAPE.