Unveiling Curriculum Shadows of Systemic Adversity among Black Youth: Pathways to Eliminate Anti-Black Macroaggressions in Schools

Abstract

This conceptual review paper critiques the conventional conceptualization of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and its failure to recognize anti-Black aggressions as an ACE. The purpose of this conceptual review is to expand our understanding of ACEs and posit that curriculum violence, a form of anti-Black aggressions, manifests as an ACE for Black youth in schools. Using the anti-Black aggressions model, we illustrate how curriculum violence, perpetuated by educational policies, serves as a form of anti-Black aggression. We specifically examine recent anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) education legislation as an anti-Black macroaggression and a systemic ACE. Additionally, we assert that anti-DEI education legislation can present as a risk factor for racial trauma among Black youth if not explicitly acknowledged by all stakeholders. Finally, we propose pathways to eliminate this anti-Black macroaggression in schools, emphasizing the need for systemic changes to address this form of adversity and racial trauma.

1. Introduction

Adversity occurs in various forms and can have a lasting impact on an individual, their family, and society (Centers for Disease Control 2024; Peterson et al. 2023). Research has shown that adversities experienced in childhood, also known as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), can have a lasting effect on an individual’s growth and development into adulthood (Bernard et al. 2021; Felitti et al. 1998). The prevalence of ACEs and their impact on health and well-being was first introduced in 1998 when researchers explored the relationship between ACEs (e.g., abuse, substance use, and mental illness in the home) and health outcomes in adulthood. Some potential detrimental health outcomes include heart disease, cancer, and increased risks for depression, substance use, and suicide attempts (Felitti et al. 1998). Since the time of the original ACEs study, the concept of ACEs has expanded to include experiences that occur in the home and community, and the ACE framework is often used as a public health model for the prevention of disease, violence, and toxic stress (Centers for Disease Control 2024). ACEs are considered to be preventable forms of adversity, and research consistently reveals sociodemographic disparities in the prevalence of ACEs for youth in the United States (Bernard et al. 2021; Giovanelli and Reynolds 2021; Liu et al. 2020; Sacks and Murphey 2018).

According to data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) and recent ACE research, Black youth in the United States (U.S.) consistently encounter higher rates of ACEs than their peers from other racial backgrounds (CAHMI 2022; Giovanelli and Reynolds 2021; Liu et al. 2020). The 2022 NSCH captured a range of 11 ACE indicators but also incorporated experiencing unfair treatment due to race or ethnicity as an additional indicator. Results from this survey reflect that 12% of surveyed Black youth have experienced unfair treatment due to race or ethnicity in comparison to 5% of Asian youth, 4.3 Hispanic, and 0.9 white (non-Hispanic) youth (CAHMI 2022). Black youth experiencing higher rates of unfair racial treatment as an ACE, along with other forms of adversity, is alarming, considering the previously noted long-term health outcomes associated with ACEs and considering that ACEs can result in trauma (Bartlett and Sacks 2019; Bernard et al. 2021; CDC 2020). Although screenings such as the NSCH and additional scholars have expanded the ACE concept to include factors such as unfair racial treatment or racial discrimination (Bernard et al. 2022; CAHMI 2022; Cronholm et al. 2015), it is integral to emphasize the systemic nature of racial discrimination as an adverse childhood experience (Lanier 2020).

When concerning Black youth specifically, it is critical to discuss how racial discrimination as an ACE is rooted in anti-Blackness and can create pathways to perpetuate racial trauma within youth’s social-ecological systems, such as schools. Schools are significant institutions for youth, considering they spend much of their time in this environment (Gomez and Ang 2007; Olsson et al. 2003). Schools can serve as a “social pathway” (Elder 1998, p. 1) that influences student development, identity formation, and social experiences (Gomez and Ang 2007; Olsson et al. 2003; Verhoeven et al. 2019). In an effort to be responsive to the impact of adversity and trauma on children’s development, schools often adopt a problematic approach by excessively focusing on individual student assessment checklists that emphasize ACE indicators of household abuse and dysfunction (Venet 2021). According to Venet (2021), this narrow focus can result in labeling, stigmatizing, and forming deficit views of students who experience ACEs. Moreover, relying solely on ACE checklists as the primary measure of children’s adversity fails to capture the full extent of how adversity impacts them. These checklists are also limited to home experiences, thereby overlooking the systemic adversity and trauma children may encounter in other environments, such as schools.

Agreeing with Venet (2021)’s discourse, this conceptual paper seeks to broaden the understanding of ACEs to include considerations for additional sources of adversity for Black youth in schools. We followed Jaakkola (2020)’s methodological framework for conceptual papers, emphasizing theory adaptation, which involves enhancing an original theory with a new perspective to make it more comprehensive. Applying theory adaptation, we critique the conventional conceptualization of ACE and its failure to acknowledge anti-Black aggressions in schools as an ACE for Black youth. Furthermore, we posit that curriculum violence is an example of how anti-Black aggressions manifest as an ACE for Black youth in schools. Using Hines and Wilmot (2018)’s anti-Black aggressions model, we explain that anti-Black aggressions reflected in curriculum violence promoted by education policy is not only an ACE for Black youth but can also serve as a risk factor for Black youth’s racial trauma. We specifically discuss anti-Black aggressions in the context of recent anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) education policies. We conclude by proposing the need to include anti-Black aggressions as a form of systemic ACEs and call for pathways to eliminate anti-Black aggressions in schools.

2. Expansions in the Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences

According to Liu et al. (2020), ACE research sheds light on the “transactional effect” (p. 174) that environments can have on a person’s development. The concept of ACEs was first introduced in 1998 and focused on micro-level interactions within the home environment. The original ACE study compared the prevalence of childhood adversity, such as child abuse and household dysfunction, with health risk behaviors, health status, and disease in adulthood (Felitti et al. 1998). This seminal study highlighted the long-term impact of ACEs and has served as a prevention framework to improve health outcomes for both adults and children (CDC 2020; Felitti 2002; Gervin et al. 2022; Merrick et al. 2017; Swedo et al. 2023). Since the original study, scholars have expanded this framework to understand the impact of ACEs on children’s well-being (Liming and Grube 2018; Webster 2022). While the original ACE framework has guided numerous public health and violence prevention efforts, early ACE research was limited to micro-level interactions within the home. An underlying assumption of this perspective is that household dynamics are the most salient factors that impact an individual’s development, failing to consider additional sources of adversity “outside of the home” (Cronholm et al. 2015, p. 355). Although family dynamics can have a strong influence on children, Finkelhor et al. (2013) argued for the need to broaden our understanding of childhood adversity beyond conventional ACEs and highlighted the impact of childhood and “interpersonal” victimization (p. 75) that can occur in various community settings. For Black youth in particular, understanding additional forms of adversity is important as they are “more likely to be exposed to the contextual disadvantage captured in [expanded ACEs) due to historical, social, and economic inequity, or other social forces …” (Giovanelli and Reynolds 2021, p. 8). Therefore, ACE models have warranted further expansion.

Within the last two decades, researchers have expanded the ACE framework to include additional sources of adversity such as peer rejection, exposure to community violence, poor academic performance, unsafe neighborhoods, disaster, poor physical health, and racial discrimination (Cronholm et al. 2015; Finkelhor et al. 2013; Wade et al. 2014, 2016). These expanded ACEs incorporate community-level adversity and acknowledge the mezzo-level interactions a child can have within their community. Similar to conventional ACEs, expanded ACEs are also associated with a variety of health risk behaviors and mental health issues and have been found to be a source of distress for youth (Cronholm et al. 2015; Finkelhor et al. 2013). The impact of expanded ACE indicators has also been found to vary by race, age, and location. Wade et al. (2016) suggested that expanded ACEs may have a greater impact on older youth as they spend more time in community settings, and individuals living in urban and under-resourced communities are at a higher risk for experiencing community-level adversity.

Although this expansion of ACEs provides a broader understanding of childhood adversity, Black youth continue to report higher rates of both conventional and expanded ACEs (CAHMI 2022; Giovanelli and Reynolds 2021). Since Black youth experience disparate rates of adversity compared to their white peers, it is critical to further assess and analyze their experiences with adversity across settings. Recent scholars have proposed a further expansion of the ACE framework to include considerations for racial discrimination experienced in macro-level interactions, as these experiences are also potentially traumatic experiences that are associated with increased psychological distress and trauma symptomatology (Bernard et al. 2021, 2022; Finkelhor et al. 2013; Lanier 2020). Bernard et al. (2021) introduced the “culturally-informed ACEs” model (C-ACE) that takes into consideration the proposition that racism is an ACE and impacts the mental health of Black youth. These frameworks have helped broaden our understanding of ACEs; however, there is limited research that considers macro-level interactions with other systems that may also serve as a source of adversity during childhood, particularly in schools (Hamai and Felitti 2022; Jernigan and Daniel 2011). Furthermore, there is a need to understand ACEs on a broader scale to explore additional macro-level contributors of adversity, such as systemic racism, that can impact Black youth. In the sections below, we specifically identify anti-Black aggressions in schools as a form of systemic racism that should be included in expanded ACE models.

3. Black Youth and Anti-Black Macroaggressions in Schools

3.1. Anti-Black Aggressions in Schools

According to Dumas (2016), anti-Blackness describes the structural and systemic social conditions that lead individuals, primarily white individuals, to view Black individuals not only as different but essentially as inhuman. Anti-Blackness is enacted through “informal and formal policies and practices that stem from feelings of disgust for and the desire to control Black bodies” (Caldera 2020, p. 16). Various scholars have critiqued anti-Blackness in schools in particular (Boutte and Bryan 2021; Caldera 2020; Dumas 2016; Hytten and Stemhagen 2023; Love 2019; Warren and Coles 2020). While not explicitly using the term anti-Blackness, scholar Carter G. Woodson ([1933] 2009) critiqued the impact of the public education system on Black youth in the preface of his classic text, The Miseducation of the Negro. Woodson wrote that “the same educational process which inspires and stimulates the oppressor with the thought that he is everything and has accomplished everything worthwhile, depresses and crushes at the same time the spark of genius in the Negro by making him feel that his race does not amount to much and never will measure the standards of other peoples” (p. 5). Almost 100 years later, the conditions and impacts of oppressive education systems on Black youth’s learning experiences, identity, and overall well-being are still discussed in the literature today.

Foundations of the Anti-Black Aggressions Model

An example of more recent descriptions of the conditions and impacts of oppressive education systems on Black youth is the work of Hines and Wilmot (2018). Hines and Wilmot first expanded upon Pierce ([1974] 2015)’s research on microaggressions—a term describing Black and white individuals’ interactions “characterized by white put-downs, done in an automatic, preconscious, or unconscious fashion” (p. 13). Pierce asserted that microaggressions are accumulating assaults on the Black community’s dignity and hope. Although Sue et al. (2007) later adapted Pierce’s concept to create the term “racial microaggressions” for general use with people of color, Hines and Wilmot (2018) recognized that Pierce’s original focus was specifically on the unique racialized experiences of Black individuals. Thus, they recentered and built upon Pierce’s framework by developing the concept of anti-Black aggressions and applying it to the educational context.

The anti-Black aggressions model was specifically designed to explain Black individuals’ social experiences with anti-Black racism. The model consists of three strata, including anti-Black microaggressions, anti-Black institutionalized racism, and anti-Black macroaggressions (Hines and Wilmot 2018). In the context of schooling, the first stratum of anti-Black microaggressions describes Black students’ racialized and gendered encounters. These encounters are rooted in dehumanizing deficit beliefs about Black individuals and can result in verbal or nonverbal interpersonal interactions. An example of anti-Black microaggression is a teacher verbalizing a deficit perspective regarding a Black student’s learning abilities (Hines 2024). The second stratum, anti-Black institutionalized racism, emphasizes education policies and procedures that are systemically embedded in the school system. The policies and procedures uphold anti-Blackness while maintaining white racial superiority. One example is school discipline policies that hyper-criminalize Black youth (Hines and Wilmot 2018). Anti-Black macroaggressions, the third stratum, include policies conceived by foundational white supremacist ideologies that perceive Black individuals as inhumane and reinforce anti-Black institutionalized racism and anti-Black microaggressions. Current state legislation restricting the teaching of Black history is one such example of anti-Black macroaggressions (Hines 2024; Hines and Wilmot 2018). As noted by Hines and Wilmot (2018), “daily encounters of anti-Black aggressions … will ultimately move from spirit-murders to deeply engrained psychological trauma” (p. 67). Accordingly, we propose that it is plausible that anti-Black aggressions function as an ACE that can lead to racial trauma if not adequately addressed.

3.2. Anti-Black Aggressions as an ACE and Pathway to Racial Trauma

As noted, anti-Black aggressions are a result of racism (Hines 2024; Hines and Wilmot 2018). The psychological and emotional impacts of racism are considered race-based stress and can result in a range of mild to extreme emotional distress, intrusive thoughts, and lowered self-esteem (Carter et al. 2005). When such symptoms are present and cannot be reduced through coping and adaptation, race-based stress is considered to have elevated to race-based traumatic stress injury, also known as racial trauma (Carter 2006; Roberson and Carter 2022). Though such reactions may be common with other life experiences, race-based traumatic stress injury is specifically associated with experiences with racism (Carter 2006, 2007). Relating to Black children in particular, racism in schools “is traumatic because it is a loss of protection, safety, nurturance, and acceptance—all things children need to be educated” (Love 2019, p. 38). Woodson ([1933] 2009) explained that the purpose of real education is to provide children with sources of inspiration to make society a better place through their contributions and to live a life full of abundance. However, anti-Black aggressions like anti-Black macroaggressions in schools deny Black youth the freedom to be fully accepted and nurtured in spaces that cultivate inspiration and abundance. This denial of a real education due to racism is, therefore, a systemic adversity in Black children’s lives. Such systemic adversity is reflected in recent anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) legislation in the U.S., a prime example of anti-Black aggressions by way of anti-Black macroaggressions (Hines 2024).

3.3. Anti-Black Macroaggressions in Anti-DEI Legislation as an ACE

In critiquing the education system, Dumas (2016) specifically named education policy as a site of anti-Blackness, explaining that this assertion is “an acknowledgment of the long history of Black struggle for educational opportunity, which is to say a struggle against what has always been (and continues to be) a struggle against specific anti-Black ideologies, discourses, representations, (mal)distribution of material resources, and physical and psychic assaults on Black bodies in schools” (p. 16). Dumas’ critique is consistent with recent anti-DEI legislation such as Florida’s Individual Freedom Act (2022), commonly referred to as the Stop WOKE Act. The Stop Woke Act dictates that any educational activity, such as teaching for students or training for teachers, “that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin” is unlawful (Florida’s Individual Freedom Act 2022, p. 1). Specific restricted concepts and topics identified in the policy include privilege, oppression, and the role of racial colorblindness. The policy suggests that teachings or training on such topics are forms of indoctrination, thus not complying with specific state principles and academic standards (Florida’s Individual Freedom Act 2022).

Though the Stop Woke Act has received criticism for various reasons (DeSantis 2024; Watson 2023), its ambiguity and contradiction have drawn significant attention (Russell-Brown 2024). For example, while the Act considers it unlawful to teach about marginalized individuals’ experiences with discrimination, the same policy consists of standards and requirements for teaching African American history. The legislation provides educators permission to teach about how descendants of the African diaspora have had their individual freedoms “infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination” (Florida’s Individual Freedom Act 2022, p. 16). Whereas the legislation describes the instructional requirement of Jewish history to include the “systematic” nature of the Holocaust (Florida’s Individual Freedom Act 2022, p. 14), there is no explicit requirement to discuss the systemic and structural conditions of slavery, oppression, segregation, and discrimination experienced by Black Americans. Furthermore, the Act requires the instruction that laws were later enforced to end these injustices (Florida’s Individual Freedom Act 2022), insinuating that such injustices no longer exist for Black Americans. One may consider the state of Florida either in support of African American history or overall confused about their standings on the subject. However, we argue that there is no confusion that the limitation imposed on the holistic teachings of Black and African American history is systemic in and of itself, “signals Blackness as problematic” (Russell-Brown 2024, p. 800), and reflects anti-Blackness.

In enacting the Stop Woke Act, Florida’s state leader, Governor Ron Desantis, has contributed to an ongoing spark of anti-DEI-related policies alongside states such as Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas (Watson 2023). We posit that legislation like Florida’s Stop WOKE policy is a demonstration of violence against racially marginalized students. While the legislation and curriculum do not reflect violence in the physical traditional sense, they illustrate that “the idea of violence against nonwhite bodies begins in the classroom” (Cridland-Hughes and King 2015, p. 100), which is a form of curriculum violence. Curriculum violence is a form of anti-Black macroaggressions (Hines 2024) and describes the minimization of nonwhite individuals’ narratives or the depiction of nonwhite individuals in inferior positions lacking agency (Cridland-Hughes and King 2015). Through curriculum violence, racially/ethnically marginalized students’ cultural perspectives and values are made invisible (Kohli 2009). Curriculum violence is commonly embedded in subjects like English and History (Cridland-Hughes and King 2015) and spans beyond the U.S. with countries like Canada, India, and the Netherlands teaching curricula that exclude the perspectives of marginalized groups such as Black students (Braden et al. 2023; Joyce and Abdou 2023; Mohanty and Dinesh 2021; Weiner 2016).

Although curriculum violence is not limited to the U.S., Braden et al. (2023) state that U.S. legislatures have and continue to promote anti-Black curricula violence through policies and practices because “they argue that it is not the purpose of education to promote social justice and that whole histories should be censored because they make white children feel guilty and uncomfortable” (p. 351). However, it is primarily marginalized students (e.g., Black students) who bear psychological and spiritual distress from curriculum violence (Boutte and Bryan 2021; Cridland-Hughes and King 2015; Johnson and Bryan 2017; Love 2019). In fact, spirit murdering, or the psychological harm resulting from racism and oppression (Williams 1987), is described as an adverse effect of promoting anti-Black aggressions through curriculum violence (Guilfoyle et al. 2024; Hines and Wilmot 2018). “Spirit-murdering pedagogies are intended to murder the spirit (e.g., educational, human, intellectual, and inner-joy) through racist teaching practices, schooling culture, and curriculums rooted in White hegemonic pedagogies and policies” (Hines and Wilmot 2018, p. 68). Educators who adhere to curricular violent practices commit a “pedagogy of violence” (Cridland-Hughes and King 2015, p. 99). Therefore, educators specifically engaging in anti-Black curriculum violence are accomplices of anti-Black institutionalized racism. Some scholars advance the comparison by equating curriculum violence to lynching due to the detrimental impact of non-culturally responsive curricula on the spirits and minds of Black children (Boutte and Bryan 2021; Johnson and Bryan 2017). Woodson ([1933] 2009) described classroom lynching as a means to systemically and academically “exploit, enslave, or exterminate” a population already deemed inferior by society (p. 6). These comparisons resonate with Cone (2011)’s assertion that “one can lynch a person without a rope or a tree” (p. 163). Therefore, the metaphorical lynching of Black students and their spirits through the anti-Black aggression of curriculum violence represents structural adversity within the education system. Hence, we not only propose that anti-Black aggressions such as curriculum violence should be considered an ACE for Black youth, but we also contend that it should be addressed with the same urgency as other conventional ACEs.

4. Implications for Researchers, Practitioners, and Policymakers

Pierce ([1974] 2015) stated that we should view “racism as a public health illness”, and to cure it, “society would have to commit itself and its resources to get rid of the pestilence” (p. 7). Similarly, the CDC (2020) asserts that everyone has a role to play in “creating safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments for all children” to prevent ACEs (p. 2). As we continue to expand our understanding of adversity to improve outcomes for future generations, it is imperative that we incorporate the spectrum of marginalized youth’s experiences to prevent excluding forms of adversity that may impact their well-being. Therefore, we hold various stakeholders accountable for committing to the elimination of ACEs such as anti-Black aggressions reflected in curriculum violence to prevent further harm to the educational experiences and overall well-being of Black youth. Furthermore, we call on stakeholders to ensure that all students, including Black students, are provided a safe educational environment that will lead them to live an abundant life as change agents. Below, we provide specific implications and suggestions for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to resist the anti-Black aggressions that we contend are a form of adverse childhood experiences impacting Black youth as a marginalized group.

4.1. Researchers

There is a growing body of the literature that explores the complex relationship between racism and mental health for Black individuals (Berger and Sarnyai 2015; Njoroge et al. 2021; Williams 2018). There are several pathways by which racism contributes to disparate mental health outcomes for Black youth, and Williams (2018) calls for more “systematic attention to identify and effectively address current and future sources of stress and mental health challenges for populations of color” (p. 475). Williams specifically highlights the need for more research that examines mental health outcomes for individuals living in racially hostile environments. The impact of anti-Black aggressions such as curriculum violence creates a hostile educational environment for Black youth, and the impact of these experiences should be further explored, particularly in states and schools with anti-Black educational policies. Furthermore, Williams and Williams-Morris (2000) call for research that also examines risk and protective factors for race-related stressors and mental health outcomes. The culturally responsive ACE framework developed by Bernard et al. (2021) is one tool for researchers to utilize that acknowledges race-related adversity, such as anti-Black aggressions, to understand the impact of such ACEs on youth in school settings.

We also recommend that scholars engage in approaches that assess Black students’ perceptions of school racial climate following the recent implementation of anti-DEI policies. When engaging in assessments, we urge scholars to acknowledge that “spirit-murder is not only about race and racism; dark people’s other identity categories, such as gender, citizenship, religion, language, class, ethnicity, nationality, and queerness, are additional, distinct factors driving discrimination, bigotry, and violence” (Love 2019, pp. 38–39). Therefore, researchers must take Black students’ intersecting identities into consideration in their assessments and inquiry. Lastly, researchers are urged to develop culturally responsive, evidence-based interventions that address Black students’ varying cultural concerns to promote racial equity through systemic change (Crutchfield and Eugene 2022).

4.2. Practitioners

Helping professionals situated in schools are ideal partners for implementing culturally responsive and evidence-based interventions due to their professional roles and standards. Professions such as school social work and school counseling, in particular, have developed anti-racist models to guide their practices within schools (Crutchfield and Eugene 2022; Mayes and Byrd 2022). We recommend that these anti-racist models be used to specifically address anti-Black aggressions impacting Black youth in school settings. As professionals such as school social workers and counselors engage in anti-racist practices, we also remind them that though anti-Black racism may result in racial trauma for Black students, students’ experiences should not be generalized. Therefore, school social workers and counselors must consider unique approaches for addressing the individuality of Black students’ experiences with anti-Black racism (Marraccini et al. 2023). Considering recent cases of curriculum violence, unique anti-racist practices can include facilitating anti-racist support groups (Beasley et al. 2023) for Black and other marginalized students and coaching marginalized students in the development of affinity groups to learn advocacy skills. Anti-Black aggressions such as curriculum violence should also be included in trauma screenings conducted by mental health staff who are guided by their respective professional associations.

Additionally, we charge school social workers, counselors, and parallel professionals to advocate for the elimination of racist policies that perpetuate inequities and impact the development and academic achievement of marginalized students. In fact, the School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA 2021) and the American School Counselor Association (ASCA 2021) assert that advocacy against such policies and inequities is one of the roles of these professions. Approaching such advocacy requires that professionals first engage in reflexivity to interrogate white supremacy as a system in their positionalities within that system (Dennis 2022). As school social workers and counselors engage in this reflexivity and interrogation process, we recommend that they form alliances with other professionals to address educational anti-Black aggressions at the local, state, and national levels (ASCA 2021). We suggest that one of the most beneficial allies may be educators (e.g., teachers), as they are frontline stakeholders working with students in schools.

To help educators sensitively address Black youth’s response to racism, it is important to first help educators understand how schools themselves can be sites of racial trauma (Alvarez et al. 2016; Haynes et al. 2023; Saleem et al. 2021). While schools can perpetuate racial trauma (Alvarez et al. 2016; Saleem and Byrd 2021; Saleem et al. 2021), they also have the potential to reflect a counter-narrative. Schools can enhance the mental health, self-esteem, and academic performance of Black and other marginalized students by being affirming environments that embrace and represent their diverse heritages, linguistic backgrounds, and personal identities (Byrd and Legette 2022; Mingo 2024; Saleem and Byrd 2021; Saleem et al. 2020). Therefore, we recommend that school leadership commit to ensuring their staff engage in race-conscious trauma-informed professional development. This form of professional development can enhance their knowledge and awareness of racial trauma and promote intentionality in culturally responsive, social justice-oriented efforts (Haynes et al. 2023). Culturally responsive and social-justice-oriented efforts should align with students’ backgrounds and personal experiences (Gay 2013; Saleem et al. 2021). These efforts must also resist anti-Blackness and anti-Black aggressions displayed in curriculum violence.

To effectively resist anti-Black aggressions in schools, teachers should be dedicated to developing “cultures of peace” that reveal justice (Braden et al. 2023, p. 351). This development involves implementing pro-Black pedagogies that convey that “African intellect, governments, economics, arts, agricultural and medical advances, ethics, and languages–precolonial and contemporary–are foundational in the construction of societies globally” (Braden et al. 2023, p. 351). These pedagogies must assess and correct historical and contemporary accounts of events rooted in white dominance, centering the Black community’s experiences of strength, joy, and achievements. This pedagogical approach leverages Black voices and identities, fostering comprehensive, humanizing acceptance and appreciation of Blackness by all students. Pro-Black pedagogies are inherently culturally responsive (Braden et al. 2023). Since culturally responsive curricula and practices can help cultivate environments that foster racial safety and affirmation for marginalized students such as Black youth (Saleem et al. 2021), these approaches can effectively address the adversity of anti-Black aggressions in schools.

4.3. Policy

Although more states are moving towards trauma-informed approaches in schools, such as universal ACE screenings, they are simultaneously implementing anti-DEI education policies that may further perpetuate adversity in the systems designed to support them. While universal screening is not the scope of this review, it is important to consider the potential negative impacts that universal screening can have on youth (Finkelhor 2018; Venet 2021). Therefore, when developing policies to support the early detection of childhood adversity, legislators should advocate for assessment tools and practices that reflect and acknowledge the full spectrum of adversity, such as anti-Black macroaggressions. They should also advocate for additional funding resources to equip schools with mental health professionals trained in providing ACE and trauma screenings.

When considering policy development surrounding curriculum violence, it is also important to consider educators’ influential role. Kohli (2009) asserted that “teachers have the agency to intervene on culturally biased curriculum. When they do not challenge this racism, they in turn condone, or even affirm, racial hierarchies with their attitudes and actions” (p. 243). However, we acknowledge that anti-DEI legislation serves as political roadblocks and barriers for the educators willing to intervene in culturally biased curricula, and recommend the elimination of such harmful and hostile policies. As states and school districts strive to implement policies aimed to protect the safety and well-being of all students, they must first incorporate participatory decision-making practices that allow for a broad representation of perspectives in policy development. Secondly, policymakers must assess the impact these policies have on the health and well-being of marginalized groups (e.g., Black students) to ensure sustainable and equitable schooling environments for all.

5. Conclusions

In this conceptual paper, we have traced the evolution of the original ACE framework and highlighted the necessity of further expanding it to include additional systemic sources of adversity for Black youth. Utilizing Hines and Wilmot (2018)’s anti-Black aggressions model, we identified anti-Black macroaggressions in schools, manifested as curriculum violence, as a form of ACE. We particularly examined how recent educational policies, such as Florida’s Individual Freedom Act (2022), illustrate this curriculum violence. We emphasized the potential psychological harms of curriculum violence as a source of adversity in Black youth’s lives and cautioned that if left unaddressed, it can lead to racial trauma. We concluded with actionable recommendations for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, aimed at enhancing the well-being of Black youth in school settings. Addressing and eradicating curriculum violence is essential for the mental health and development of Black youth and is a critical step on the pathway toward achieving racial equity in educational systems.