Massachusetts and Washington State Lead the Nation’s Trauma‑Sensitive School Movement

How Trauma-Sensitive Education Is Rewriting the Rules of Schooling

Massachusetts and Washington State are quickly becoming national examples of what it looks like when schools take trauma seriously. As districts across the U.S. face escalating levels of student anxiety, disruptive behavior, and disengagement from learning, these two states are deliberately reshaping policies, professional development, and everyday classroom practice around the science of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).

Drawing on research that links ACEs to long-term health, mental health, and academic outcomes, Massachusetts and Washington are weaving trauma-informed principles into the core of schooling-not as add-ons, but as organizing frameworks. From statewide training initiatives to school climate redesign, their work offers an early preview of what trauma-sensitive education might look like when implemented at scale.

From Local Pilots to Statewide Trauma-Informed Systems

Across the country, what began as scattered pilot projects is evolving into a broader campaign to embed trauma-informed principles in education policy and teacher preparation. State legislatures, education departments, and district superintendents are increasingly recognizing that traditional, compliance-based systems often fail students carrying the weight of chronic stress, violence, poverty, or instability.

To respond, states are using a variety of policy tools to promote trauma-sensitive education, including:

• Guidance and regulations that encourage or require trauma-informed approaches to discipline and school climate
• Grant programs funding training on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and trauma-informed practices
• Licensure and accreditation standards that include trauma-related competencies for teachers and administrators
• Accountability indicators that track school climate, exclusionary discipline, and student wellness alongside academic outcomes

The common thread: a shift toward school environments that are predictable, relationship-rich, and attuned to the neurobiological impact of toxic stress on behavior, attention, and learning.

Defining Features of Trauma-Informed State Frameworks

New and emerging state-level frameworks generally emphasize:

• Moving away from zero-tolerance policies and toward restorative, relationship-centered responses to conflict
• Embedding mental health supports within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), rather than treating them as outside “extras”
• Systematic data monitoring of suspensions, restraints, seclusion, and other exclusionary practices to identify inequities
• State-funded coaching and technical assistance to help school leaders implement trauma-sensitive strategies with fidelity
• Cross-agency collaboration between education, child welfare, juvenile justice, and public health systems

Massachusetts vs. Washington: Two Distinct Paths to Trauma-Responsive Schools

Although both Massachusetts and Washington State ground their work in ACEs research, they have taken different structural routes-offering complementary models for other states considering similar reforms.

Massachusetts: Deep, Whole-School Transformation

In Massachusetts, the emphasis has been on reimagining school culture from the ground up. Through the Safe & Supportive Schools initiative, districts are:

• Providing intensive professional development on trauma-informed practices for teachers, counselors, and administrators
• Reviewing attendance, discipline, and achievement data through a trauma lens to understand patterns rather than just punish incidents
• Establishing school-based leadership teams charged with aligning policies, schedules, and supports around student safety and connection
• Placing equal priority on relational safety, emotional regulation, and academic rigor

This approach treats trauma-sensitive education as a whole-school redesign challenge, not a program confined to one department or specialist.

Washington: Building a Statewide Infrastructure

Washington’s approach centers on creating coordinated, statewide systems that make trauma-informed practices accessible to all districts, including rural and under-resourced ones. Key elements include:

• Regional coaching networks that provide ongoing support in trauma-sensitive strategies
• Integration of trauma-informed practices into existing MTSS and school improvement plans, reducing initiative fatigue
• Alignment with other statewide initiatives focused on social-emotional learning, mental health, and equity

Instead of separate pilots, Washington is weaving trauma-sensitive practices into structures schools already use, aiming for sustainability and consistency over time.

Shared Pillars Across Both Models

Despite their different entry points, Massachusetts and Washington share several structural components:

• Cross-agency partnerships connecting schools with mental health providers, child welfare agencies, juvenile justice partners, and community-based organizations
• Staff training that normalizes discussion of ACEs, secondary trauma, and educator well-being, recognizing that adults also need support
• Data-informed decision-making, including regular review of suspensions, absenteeism, climate survey results, and academic performance
• Student voice and leadership in designing calming spaces, peer supports, and restorative practices

What the Data Show: Trauma-Informed Practices and Student Outcomes

Early evidence from districts in Massachusetts and Washington State suggests that trauma-informed, ACEs-responsive strategies do more than improve classroom climate-they also correlate with measurable gains in academic and behavioral indicators.

School leaders report that when environments are calmer, more predictable, and supportive, students are better able to stay in class, complete work, and manage conflict. Internally collected data from trauma-sensitive pilot sites show:

• Reduced out-of-school suspensions and classroom referrals
• Improved attendance and reductions in chronic absenteeism
• Upward trends in reading and math proficiency on benchmark assessments

Instead of focusing on “what’s wrong with this student,” staff are trained to ask, “what happened to this student, and what do they need right now?” That mindset shift is reinforced by:

• Use of screening tools to flag social-emotional and behavioral concerns early
• Behavioral dashboards that display patterns and hotspots across classrooms and grade levels
• Tiered interventions that provide escalating levels of support while keeping students connected to instruction whenever possible

Common Strategies in High-Impact Trauma-Sensitive Schools

Districts reporting the strongest gains tend to share a cluster of practices, including:

• Regulation spaces-purposefully designed areas where students can calm, reset, and return to learning-often replacing traditional detention rooms
• Training in de-escalation and ACEs science for all staff, not just counselors or administrators
• Structured family engagement protocols that strengthen home-school communication and trust
• Dedicated data teams that meet regularly to examine trends and adjust supports in real time

Context: Why Trauma-Informed Education Matters Now

National data underscore why this shift is urgent. Surveys conducted since the COVID-19 pandemic have documented:

• Rising rates of youth depression and anxiety, particularly among adolescents
• Increased reports of food and housing insecurity among school-age children
• Higher levels of exposure to violence, grief, and family stress

In this context, trauma-sensitive, ACEs-informed systems are not peripheral innovations-they are increasingly central to ensuring that students can access learning at all.

Scaling Trauma-Sensitive Systems: Policy and Funding Levers

As more states look to replicate the successes of Massachusetts and Washington, a key question emerges: how do trauma-informed practices move from short-lived pilots to durable, system-wide standards?

State education agencies and lawmakers are beginning to respond by rethinking both regulations and funding priorities.

From One-Off Workshops to Long-Term Capacity Building

Advocates argue that trauma-informed education cannot be sustained through isolated professional development days. Instead, they are pushing for:

• Multi-year grants that support continuous professional learning and coaching
• Formula-based allocations tied to poverty levels or community adversity indicators, rather than small competitive grants
• Requirements within school improvement plans that explicitly address trauma-responsive practices

By embedding trauma-sensitive expectations into accountability frameworks, states are giving districts both the mandate and the permission to redesign schedules, staffing, and discipline systems.

Aligning Education, Health, and Social Services

Another theme emerging from policy proposals is the need for alignment across agencies. Without coordination, schools are left trying to piece together fragmented supports for students who may also be involved with health, mental health, or social service systems.

To address this, states are exploring ways to:

• Direct funding toward school-community partnerships that bring services onto campus or create seamless referral pathways
• Invest in technology tools that track climate, connection, and service referrals while protecting student privacy
• Support evaluation and research to identify which trauma-informed strategies work at scale, for which students, and under what conditions

Districts hoping to build comprehensive trauma-sensitive systems are increasingly looking for:

• Stable funding for systemwide staff training and ongoing coaching
• Dedicated roles such as trauma coordinators, family liaisons, and behavioral health specialists
• Integrated data systems that tie together attendance, discipline, academic performance, and support referrals
• Formal agreements with health and social service agencies to clarify roles, responsibilities, and data-sharing protocols

Looking Ahead: What Massachusetts and Washington Signal for the Nation

As Massachusetts and Washington refine and expand their trauma-sensitive, ACEs-informed approaches, they are demonstrating that schools can do more than react to crises: they can proactively design environments that buffer the impact of adversity.

The early results suggest that when schools invest in relationships, emotional safety, and regulation-not just curriculum and assessment-benefits ripple outward:

• Students show stronger engagement and fewer serious behavior incidents
• Educators report clearer frameworks for responding to challenging behavior
• School systems gain data they can use to make smarter decisions about resources and supports

Whether other states follow this path will depend largely on the strength of the evidence that continues to emerge-particularly around long-term academic outcomes, graduation rates, and community well-being. But for now, Massachusetts and Washington stand at the forefront of a growing movement, testing whether U.S. schools can transition from reacting to trauma after the fact to anticipating it and softening its impact before it disrupts a child’s education.

Their experience suggests that trauma-sensitive education is not a trend, but a foundational shift in how schools understand and support the children they serve.