The Hidden Costs of Standards: How Spiraled Curricula Fail Trauma-Affected Students
Title 1 schools are under increasing pressure to improve their standardised test scores, a challenge that has only intensified with the implementation of heavily spiralled curricula, pitched as aligning with the Common Core State Standards. These curricula are often promoted as a panacea, believed to be the key to reversing the downward trends in student performance. However, this approach overlooks the complex realities faced by students in Title 1 schools—realities shaped by poverty, instability, and trauma. The very conditions that qualify a school for Title 1 designation—high levels of economic disadvantage, lack of resources, and community challenges—create an environment where students are more likely to experience trauma. This trauma can manifest in myriad ways, disrupting learning and leading to significant, cumulative learning loss over time.
Whilst spiralled curricula like Illustrative Math, which my school uses, may be well-intentioned, their one-size-fits-all approach fails to address the underlying issues that hinder learning in these environments. These programmes assume a baseline of stability and prior knowledge spanning many grade levels—assumptions that many students, particularly those dealing with the effects of trauma, simply do not meet. The result is that rather than closing achievement gaps, these curricula often exacerbate them, leaving the most vulnerable students further behind. In today’s article, I will explore what happens to student learning without a shift towards trauma-informed curricula. We will examine how efforts to raise standardised test scores in Title 1 schools are not only misguided but potentially harmful. Only by addressing the root causes of learning loss can we hope to create a truly equitable educational environment where all students have the opportunity to succeed.
The Intersection of Trauma and Learning Loss
Trauma has a profound impact on both cognitive and emotional development, creating significant barriers to learning that are often underestimated in educational settings. For students in Title 1 schools, particularly those in areas with high refugee and migrant populations like Los Angeles, these effects are magnified. Many of these students come from backgrounds marked by violence, displacement, and instability, experiences that leave deep psychological scars. The cognitive effects of trauma can include difficulties with memory, attention, and executive functioning—skills that are essential for academic success. When a student’s brain is in a constant state of fight or flight, it becomes nearly impossible to focus on learning, retain information, or engage in higher-order thinking. This state of hyper-vigilance disrupts the brain’s ability to process new information, leading to gaps in learning that only widen over time.
Emotionally, trauma can lead to dysregulation, making it difficult for students to manage their feelings and behaviour in a classroom setting. This emotional turmoil often manifests as anxiety, depression, or anger, which can be misinterpreted by educators as defiance or lack of motivation. However, these behaviours are often protective mechanisms, coping strategies developed in response to overwhelming stress. When a student is struggling with unaddressed trauma, their capacity to engage with the curriculum is severely diminished, no matter how well it is aligned with state standards. The challenges are even greater for students who face language barriers, as these students must navigate the additional stress of learning in a new language while dealing with the psychological aftermath of their experiences.
The long-term consequences of unaddressed trauma are particularly concerning. Repeated exposure to trauma not only compounds cognitive and emotional difficulties but also leads to cumulative learning loss across all learning domains. This means that as students progress through school, the gaps in their knowledge and skills become increasingly difficult to bridge. Each year, as the curriculum becomes more challenging, these students fall further behind, unable to keep up with the pace of learning. This cumulative effect is especially pronounced in spiralled curricula like Illustrative Math, which builds on prior knowledge and assumes that students have mastered earlier concepts. For trauma-affected students, who may have missed or misunderstood foundational lessons due to their cognitive and emotional struggles, each new layer of complexity adds to their sense of frustration and defeat.
In environments where trauma is prevalent, such as schools with high refugee and migrant populations, the traditional approach to education—focused on standards and achievement—often fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable students. The emphasis on academic performance and testing can exacerbate the effects of trauma, further alienating students who are already struggling. Without interventions that specifically address the impacts of trauma, these students are at risk of falling permanently behind, reinforcing cycles of poverty and disadvantage. Recognising and addressing the intersection of trauma and learning loss is crucial for creating an educational environment where all students, regardless of their backgrounds, can succeed.
The Misguided Reliance on Spiraled Curricula in Title 1 Schools
Spiraled curricula, such as Illustrative Math, are designed with the intention of building student understanding gradually, by revisiting key concepts repeatedly over multiple years. The idea is that each time a concept is revisited, it is explored in greater depth and complexity, allowing students to develop a robust and interconnected understanding of mathematical principles. In theory, this approach helps reinforce learning and ensure that students retain and build on their knowledge as they progress through their education. For students who have a stable learning environment and a strong foundation in prior knowledge, spiraled curricula can be effective in fostering long-term retention and mastery of complex concepts.
However, the applicability of spiraled curricula in Title 1 schools, particularly those with high populations of trauma-affected students, is deeply flawed. These curricula are often developed and validated in environments that do not reflect the realities of Title 1 schools—schools where students are more likely to be dealing with significant barriers to learning, including trauma, language difficulties, and disabilities. The norming and validation processes for these curricula rarely take into account the unique challenges faced by students in these settings, or the presence of high numbers of students with Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs). As a result, these curricula are misaligned with the needs of the students they are being used to teach.
The fundamental flaw in spiraled curricula is their assumption that students have consistently mastered the material from previous years. This assumption is particularly problematic in Title 1 schools, where students often come from backgrounds of poverty and instability that disrupt their learning. Trauma-affected students, in particular, may struggle to retain information from year to year, especially if their cognitive and emotional needs have not been adequately addressed. When these students encounter material in a spiraled curriculum, they are expected to build on a foundation that may be shaky or incomplete. The curriculum moves forward, assuming prior knowledge that many of these students simply do not have, leading to confusion and frustration.
As these gaps in understanding accumulate, the effectiveness of the spiraled approach diminishes. Instead of reinforcing learning, the spiraled curriculum can exacerbate existing learning gaps, making it increasingly difficult for students to catch up. For trauma-affected students, who may already feel disconnected from the learning process, this approach can be particularly damaging. Each time they encounter material that they are not prepared for, their sense of competence and motivation diminishes, further hindering their ability to engage with the curriculum. Over time, this can lead to a cycle of failure, where students fall further and further behind, despite the curriculum’s intention to build their knowledge incrementally.
In Title 1 schools, where the student population is more diverse and includes a higher proportion of students with IEPs, the reliance on spiraled curricula is misguided. These curricula fail to account for the uneven educational experiences of students in these settings and do not provide the flexibility or support needed to address the learning gaps that are common in trauma-affected populations. Instead of closing achievement gaps, spiraled curricula can compound them, leaving the most vulnerable students further behind. To truly support student learning in Title 1 schools, it is essential to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions and adopt approaches that are responsive to the specific needs of the student population, particularly those who have been impacted by trauma.
The Pressure on Title 1 Schools and the Flawed Solutions Imposed
Title 1 schools are under immense systemic pressure to improve their standardised test scores, particularly those measured by the SBAC. This pressure has only intensified in the wake of the Race to the Top initiative, a cornerstone of neoliberal education reform spearheaded by former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Under Duncan’s leadership, the Race to the Top tied federal funding to the adoption of specific reforms, including the implementation of standardised testing and the adoption of curricula aligned with the Common Core State Standards. The SBAC, a product of this era, was designed to measure student achievement in alignment with these standards. However, the emphasis on testing and standards-aligned curricula has created a high-stakes environment where schools are judged, funded, and even threatened with closure based on their students’ performance on these assessments.
In this context, Title 1 schools, which serve some of the most disadvantaged students, are particularly vulnerable. Faced with the threat of losing funding or being labelled as failing, these schools are often compelled to adopt heavily spiralled, standards-aligned curricula like Illustrative Math in an effort to boost SBAC scores. The assumption is that by aligning instruction more closely with the standards tested by the SBAC, schools can improve student outcomes and reverse downward trends in performance. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the complex realities that many students in Title 1 schools face.
The underlying assumption of these reforms is that educational outcomes can be improved simply by standardising curricula and increasing accountability through testing. This ignores the profound impact that poverty, instability, and trauma have on students’ ability to learn. Standards-aligned curricula may be effective in more stable environments, but in Title 1 schools, where trauma is prevalent, these curricula often fail to address the root causes of learning loss. The result is that rather than improving educational outcomes, these imposed solutions can exacerbate existing inequities, leaving the most vulnerable students even further behind. To truly support these students, we must move beyond the narrow focus on standards and testing and consider the broader context of their lives, including the trauma they may be experiencing. Without this shift in perspective, the pressure to adopt these flawed solutions will continue to do more harm than good.
The Need for Trauma-Informed Curricula
In the context of Title 1 schools, the need for trauma-informed curricula is not just important—it is essential. A trauma-informed curriculum is one that recognises the pervasive impact of trauma on learning and actively seeks to create a supportive and responsive educational environment. This approach goes beyond merely accommodating trauma; it involves rethinking how we teach, what we prioritise in the classroom, and how we measure success. In trauma-informed education, the focus is on creating safe, predictable, and supportive learning environments where students feel understood and valued. Such curricula are designed to be flexible, allowing for the varied experiences and needs of students, particularly those who have been affected by trauma.
The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) offers a powerful lens through which to understand the needs of trauma-affected students and to design curricula that respond to these needs. This framework shifts the focus from what is ‘wrong’ with a student to understanding what has happened to them, the threats they have faced, and the meanings they have made from their experiences. By using this approach, educators can develop curricula that do not merely address academic deficits but also consider the broader context of students’ lives. This means creating learning experiences that are relevant, empowering, and attuned to the emotional and psychological realities of students who have experienced trauma. Such an approach allows for a more holistic view of education, where academic success is intertwined with emotional well-being.
When viewed through the lens of Critical Theory, the need for trauma-informed curricula becomes even more pressing. Critical Theory critiques the power structures and inequalities inherent in current educational practices, highlighting how these practices often reinforce existing social hierarchies. In the case of trauma-affected students, the standardised, one-size-fits-all approach to education, particularly in the context of Title 1 schools, can perpetuate cycles of disadvantage. For example, curriculum developers in the ‘standards-aligned space’ frequently discourage teachers from using direct explicit instruction, a method that is often critical for students with IEPs. Despite the specification for direct explicit instruction in many IEPs, students rarely receive this type of support, particularly in the context of spiralled curricula. This lack of direct instruction is not accidental but appears to be by design, further reinforcing class structures and perpetuating educational inequities.
A trauma-informed curriculum, developed through the insights of the PTMF and Critical Theory, challenges these entrenched practices. It prioritises the needs of the student over rigid adherence to standards, recognising that true equity in education requires a responsive and adaptive approach. By embracing trauma-informed practices, educators can create learning environments that are not only more inclusive but also more effective in meeting the needs of all students, particularly those who are most vulnerable. This shift is essential for breaking the cycle of trauma and poverty that too often defines the experience of students in Title 1 schools.
What a Trauma-Informed Curriculum Might Look Like in Practice
A trauma-informed curriculum must be grounded in several key principles that guide both the content and delivery of education in ways that are responsive to the needs of trauma-affected students. Flexibility is paramount; such a curriculum must allow for adjustments in pacing, content, and teaching methods to accommodate the varied learning needs of students. Safety is another critical principle, not just in the physical sense, but in creating an emotionally secure environment where students feel supported and valued. Relationship-building is at the heart of trauma-informed education, recognising that strong, positive relationships with teachers and peers can be a powerful buffer against the effects of trauma. Finally, the inclusion of social-emotional learning (SEL) is essential, as it helps students develop the skills to manage their emotions, build resilience, and navigate the complexities of their lives.
In practice, a trauma-informed curriculum might include specific strategies such as integrating SEL into the daily routine, offering multiple means of expression and engagement in the classroom, and providing regular opportunities for reflection and mindfulness. For example, incorporating morning check-ins where students can share their feelings in a safe, non-judgmental space can help foster a sense of community and belonging. Another strategy might involve project-based learning, which allows students to explore subjects that interest them at their own pace, thereby reducing the pressure and stress often associated with traditional assessments. Additionally, trauma-informed curricula might emphasise restorative practices over punitive disciplinary measures, focusing on repairing harm and rebuilding relationships rather than punishment.
However, implementing such a curriculum requires more than just a shift in educational practices; it demands systemic changes that address the well-being of teachers as well. Teachers, particularly those in Title 1 schools, are often chronically underpaid, working in environments that require significant unpaid overtime, personal financial contributions to classroom supplies, and emotional labour that far exceeds the expectations of most other professions. The restrictive time environment, coupled with low pay, forces many teachers into situations where they must make considerable personal sacrifices, such as long commutes or working second jobs, just to make ends meet. In my case, commuting 81 miles to school is a stark reminder of how disconnected teacher compensation is from the cost of living in many areas.
This chronic underpayment and the resultant financial and emotional strain contribute to a form of teacher trauma, which is often overlooked in discussions about educational reform. For teachers to effectively create and sustain trauma-informed classrooms, they themselves need the safety and security of a proper living wage that reflects the cost of living in the areas where they work. Without this, the additional emotional and logistical demands of implementing a trauma-informed curriculum may become overwhelming, leading to burnout and high turnover rates, which only serve to perpetuate the cycle of instability that trauma-informed education seeks to break.
Moreover, the current emphasis on token economies and behaviourist strategies, often imposed by administrators, adds another layer of stress for teachers who may not align with these approaches. These strategies, which frequently require teachers to fund rewards out of their own pockets, are a far cry from the relational, supportive environment that trauma-informed education advocates. Instead of focusing on external rewards, a trauma-informed approach would prioritise intrinsic motivation, fostering an environment where students are encouraged to learn and grow because they feel safe, respected, and valued.
As such, a trauma-informed curriculum cannot succeed in isolation. It requires systemic support for teachers, including fair compensation, adequate resources, and a work environment that recognises and values the emotional and financial demands placed on educators. Only with this foundation can teachers fully engage in the work of creating trauma-informed classrooms that truly support and uplift their students.
Final thoughts …
The challenges faced by Title 1 schools are complex and deeply rooted, making it clear that a shift from standards-aligned, spiraled curricula to trauma-informed approaches is not just necessary—it is urgent. Throughout today’s article, we have explored how trauma significantly impacts learning, leading to cumulative learning loss that spiraled curricula like Illustrative Math only exacerbate. These curricula, whilst seemingly well-intentioned, are fundamentally misaligned with the needs of students in trauma-affected environments, particularly in schools serving high populations of disadvantaged, migrant, and refugee students. The systemic pressures to improve standardised test scores, driven by neoliberal policies like the Race to the Top, have forced these schools to adopt flawed solutions that ignore the underlying issues of trauma and instability, ultimately widening achievement gaps rather than closing them.
As we approach a critical juncture in the political landscape, the stakes could not be higher. The upcoming Presidential election, with the Republican candidate’s alignment with the RNC’s platform and ties to the neocolonial Project 2025, poses a direct threat to the very existence of free public schools. This represents yet another powerful threat from which we must protect ourselves and our students. The time has come for educators, policymakers, and stakeholders to re-evaluate current educational practices and push for the adoption of trauma-informed curricula that truly address the real needs of our students. We must reject the one-size-fits-all approach and instead embrace strategies that consider the whole child, including their emotional and psychological well-being. Only by doing so can we create a more equitable educational system that empowers all students to succeed, regardless of the challenges they face.