Mental health concerns among children are higher than ever with the National Survey of Children’s Health reporting that 13.2% of children 3-17 have been diagnosed with a mental or behavioral health condition. Despite high prevalence among youth, only 60.2% of adolescents with a diagnosis received treatment or counseling. School counselors often fill this gap as they are tasked with attending to the social-emotional development of students and they serve all students in schools. They often serve students in small group interventions with 87% of school counselors reporting utilizing groups. The researcher hypothesizes that a small group positive psychology intervention (PPI) facilitated by school counselors can improve well-being and academic performance among secondary students when compared to baseline levels.

While there are many examples of PPI’s within education, this curriculum was co-created by the researchers and colleagues with the Montana Happiness Project with a goal of creating a free resource for counselors to utilize with student populations. Using an experimental single-case research design (SCRD), across multiple participants and groups, where each participant/group serves as their own control, the researchers hope to demonstrate positive effects of the independent variable (group intervention) on wellbeing and academic performance.

The results of this research will inform us about the quality of the group curriculum as its effectiveness is as of yet untested. If positive effects of the group intervention are seen, this will serve as evidence to support school counselors using this intervention to improve student outcomes. Additionally, the effective use of SCRD for school counselors serves as a model for all school counselors who are required to utilize data to inform interventions. Mental health counselors may also be encouraged if this short intervention shows improvements related to mental health and school administrators would be encouraged if improvements are seen within the academic realm.

School is an integral environment for students to learn the academic and social-emotional skills they need to be successful. However, students are inseparable from the challenges they face at home or in the community, and these dynamics affect their behaviors at school. Children with histories of trauma are often identified through a range of emotional and behavioral concerns and there is an increasing need to intervene. It is reported that by age 16, more than two-thirds of children will be exposed to one traumatic event (SAMHSA, 2022). Despite the prevalence of trauma, the signs manifest differently, making it difficult to identify. This uniquely positions schools as both an outlet for the child and an opportunity to intervene early (Bell et al., 2013). Teachers are often the first available to respond and refer students for services. Although most teachers aim to support children’s mental health alongside their academics, they also report feeling underprepared to manage the associated behaviors (Alisic et al., 2012). This lack of preparation, coupled with the limited research on teachers’ perceptions of the underlying causes and responses to behavioral manifestations of trauma, highlights a need for this research. Behavioral vignettes were used to assess teachers’ (n = 54) responses to hypothetical internalizing and externalizing behaviors associated with trauma. Years of teaching experience, trauma-informed attitude, and level of trauma-informed training were examined to see if they predicted teachers’ responses as trauma-informed or punitive disciplinary consequences. Additionally, the study examined teachers’ immediate responses to the behavior and their interpretation of the underlying cause of the behaviors. The overarching goal was to investigate how sensitive teachers are to the range of behavioral symptoms associated with trauma, and provide insight into the practices and training needs of teachers so they are equipped to support children’s mental health needs in school.

Is Done perfect?

African American English (AAE) is a distinct, though frequently stigmatized, variety of American English. Historically described as a “vernacular” (and frequently still is to this day) many of the systematic rules that govern the dialect have been glossed over or sporadically described. One such structure is preverbal done, seen in constructions such as “But then I think they done cremate her.”. Previous authors (Green 1993, Edwards 2001, Terry 2010 and Scott 2016) have described this construction as a present perfect, parallelling standard English’s construction using have. More recently, Harris 2019 describes the construction as a “noncongruence marker” being used by speakers to indicate a disjunction between expectations and reality with available readings of “Moral outrage, disappointment, shock, surprise, and [..] unintentionality/unawareness […] which arise depending on the nature of the ordering source

the speaker takes as their conversational background in a given context.” (Harris 2019 pg. 172). These varying accounts of the interpretations available when using done constructions highlights the need for renewed analysis and investigation of this structure. My work has been centered around identifying and codifying how speakers leverage this construction. By examining the Corpus Of Regional African American Language (CORAAL), examples of preverbal done produced in casual conversation have been gathered and examined. By applying tests for identifying perfects proposed by Comrie and others I have reexamined the discussion concerning how to best classify this construction and its uses in African American English(es). Through this investigation I strive to contribute to the field of linguistics’ understanding of aspect cross linguistically and dialectally, as well as shining much needed light on the structure of African American English(es).

This presentation derives from my thesis for my B.A. in Anthropology about the Muysca people in contact with Christianity. Muysca, a chibchan language from the center of Colombia, ceased to be spoken during Spanish colonization more than two hundred years ago. Modern Muysca people and researchers are trying to learn Muysca as a second language to “revive it”, and one of the most frequently asked questions from beginner learners is “how do you say ‘God’ in Muysca?”. This single question requires us to look closely at the late 16^th century, when the Spanish empire selected Muysca as the general language of evangelization for the New Kingdom of Granada (nowadays Colombia) and created dictionaries, catechisms and grammar books to teach Muysca to the clergy. Those linguistic documents are the most important source to study the language, but they lack a translation for “God” and use the Spanish word “Dios” instead. On the other hand, when the texts refer to the Muysca religious world, one can find native words in Muysca with apparently vague translations as “idol” and “sanctuary” and sometimes as “demon”.

During the years of evangelization, the Spanish authorities also carried out the “extirpation of idolatry”, consisting of several campaigns to prosecute perpetrators of idolatry, to destroy temples and religious objects and to convince people to embrace catholic doctrine. The historical records of this “extirpation” are the key to understanding the linguistic archive in its context and how the language underwent an “extirpation” as well as the territory and the people. The way we could say “God” in Muysca depends on how we understand the historical record. The case of Muysca is an example of how the Spanish empire used indigenous languages in a creative way to introduce Christianity and build the antagonism of the native religions against Christianity.

Emerging adulthood is a critical developmental period, especially for identity development – the development of our sense of who we are internally and relative to others. This research sought to investigate one understudied aspect of identity development: Political identity. Four questions guided this research: First, is political identity related to broad identity development? Second, does political identity development differ based on political ideology (liberal, moderate, conservative)? Third, do individuals’ self-identified political turning point events differ based on political ideology? Fourth, does identity development, more generally, and political identity development, more specifically, predict narrative arcs around political turning points? College-going emerging adults (18-25 years; N = 219) from the Montana University System completed an online survey comprised of a Demographic Questionnaire, Dimensions of Identity Development Scale, Political Behavior and Attitudes assessment, Political Identity Development measure, Political Turning Point Narrative, and a well-being measure (WHO-5). This study sought to fill the gap in political identity development literature by refining our understanding of identity development, particularly political identity development, in emerging adulthood for college-going adults.

Since 1999 Y-DNA testing has become a scientific mainstay for genetic studies, as well as a modern pastime among genealogical enthusiasts and researchers using objective data in the study of family lineages, particularly paternal line ancestors. The company that pioneered the use of this technology is one called Family Tree DNA.

Many DNA testing companies, i.e., websites like 23 and me, Ancestry, My True Heritage, etc focus primarily on Autosomal and Mitochondrial DNA, typically passed down from maternal lineages, however it has limitations when seeking a broader view with more depth into lineages that span over thousands of years as compared to the mere 150-200 years that Autosomal / MtDNA is typically capable of producing. The problem arises with racial classifications that are monolithic in nature and based predominantly upon skin color, not considering the lineage of the paternal line and its ability to objectively peer past the ostensible phenotypical characteristics that are mostly derived from maternal DNA gene flows.

The purpose of this paper is to point out and solidify the fact that skin color is not necessarily and indication of ethnicity whether referring to black or white. It is rather a function of haplogroup, blood type and genealogy when it comes to tracing one’s ancestry, based on a direct line from father to father spanning generations up to 40,000 years or more, as Y-DNA does not mutate the way that maternal DNA does over these time spans allowing an easier tracking mechanism for the discovery of ancestral origins.

The scientific methodology for this study relies on Y-DNA testing provided by Family Tree DNA, which is linked to notable historical connections for which a tester shares a paternal line reaching back to a shared common paternal ancestor, which can be hundreds or thousands of years in antiquity.

The Mozingo lineage is connected to various royals of Europe, which appear in the data, or notable connections listing. Albert Einstein, The Hunyadi Royal Family of Hungary, Napoleon, The Wright Brothers, Lyndon B. Johnson, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Patrick Sarsfield, Rahmah Ibn Jabir al-Jalhami, Richard Warren, Harfush Dynasty and even Pharoah Ramses III, all share the same paternal common ancestor with me and thus prove skin color not a factor in the indication of our shared Semitic heritage.

In conclusion, the Mozingo Y-DNA, was first studied by Family Tree DNA in the year 2000 with the aid of geneticists Dr. Abraham Lavender, Dr. Rene Herrera and Reese Mozingo which produced a controversial conclusion about the Y-DNA of an authentic Sephardic Judean paternal lineage, still guarded to this day. https://cryptojews.com/dna-and-the-sephardic-diaspora-spanish-and-portuguese-jews-in-europe/