This article was originally published on 20 September 2023

Just over a third of teachers have now had some form of training in “trauma-informed” practice, according to a survey from Teacher Tapp. But to what extent is that training translating into the effective use of trauma-informed approaches in the classroom?

That’s hard to say because schools are doing trauma-informed practice in a variety of ways - and not all training providers are offering the same advice.

“Schools are adopting many different trauma-informed strategies,” says Eamon McCrory, a consultant clinical psychologist and professor of developmental neuroscience and psychopathology at University College London.

“There are many models out there making different claims about best practice. It’s challenging for teachers to know what the best approach is.”

This issue is compounded by the fact that an exact definition of trauma-informed practice in schools is hard to pin down. Some see it as an absence of punishment; some as a context-driven use of punishment. Some believe it removes boundaries for certain children; some believe boundaries have to be even more robust.

In most cases, according to experts, the definitions are usually far too narrow. As David Trickey, a consultant clinical psychologist and co-director of the UK Trauma Council, explains, being trauma-informed is complex. He describes it as a “wide-reaching, broad, all-encompassing way of doing, thinking and feeling”.

‘Massive’ misconceptions

Schools are not to blame for the confusion and “watered down” approaches to trauma-informed practice that exist, stresses Jessica Taylor, psychologist, trauma expert and chief executive of training provider Victim Focus. Instead, she places the blame on the fact that much of the trauma-informed training on offer is “patchy and unregulated”.

“Some schools believe they are trauma informed after half a day of basic training, without making any policy or ethos changes in the school,” she says.

“In other cases, schools have been taught that any form of behaviour can be explained and excused by trauma, which is also incorrect. None of this is the fault of teachers, or of schools.”

Trauma-informed practice originates from approaches that were developed in the fields of medicine and mental health to allow practitioners to more sensitively support patients with traumatic histories. The principles underpinning these practices have since been adopted by schools and other frontline services, such as the police and social care.

However, the confusion over trauma-informed practice in schools specifically has, in some cases, severely damaged the reputation of the approach.

For example, a teacher working in a large secondary school in London, who asked not to be named, says that the introduction of trauma-informed approaches has led to a deterioration of behaviour at her school.

“Behaviour has declined really quickly because sanctions don’t apply to these students,” she explains. “It’s being normalised that they can tell us to ‘shut the fuck up’, and be held back by two members of staff from attacking a teacher because of ‘trauma’.”

This perception of trauma-informed practice has become commonplace, with it being seen as an approach that accepts poor behaviour in schools.

But Julie Harmieson, director of education at Trauma-Informed Schools UK, points out that this is not what effective trauma-informed practice should look like.

“There is a massive misconception that a trauma-informed approach is the absence of rules, expectations and consequences,” she says.

“In all honesty, I find it hugely frustrating because, without limits and boundaries, there is no sense of safety, which is fundamental for a trauma-informed environment.”

‘There are many models out there. It’s challenging for teachers to know what the best approach is’

Would the reputation of trauma-informed practice be improved if it were implemented in a way closer to the approach experts advocate? Some argue schools simply aren’t set up to do it successfully.

“‘Trauma-informed’ sounds great in theory, but it can be disastrous in practice,” says Tom Bennett, the Department for Education’s lead behaviour adviser.

He explains that trauma-informed practice, as it was originally designed, involves therapeutic processes that are difficult to implement in non-clinical settings by members of school staff who aren’t “clinically trained to diagnose or treat trauma”.

“Of course, no one would want to be ‘trauma uninformed’,” he continues, “but…there is little evidence to suggest that trauma-informed practice has a positive effect on student behaviour, either at scale or in small groups”.

The evidence base

So, what does the research say about the effectiveness of these approaches as they are currently being deployed?

While not based on research in schools, a 2022 Early Intervention Foundation report on trauma-informed practice in social care in the UK found that practitioners are “often quite enthusiastic” about trauma-informed principles.

However, there is “a notable lack of consistency” in practical application, with value “yet to be rigorously evaluated”. The expansion of practice has “far outpaced any evaluation”, the report adds, and “the extent to which experiences of trauma are reduced by trauma-informed activities remains largely unknown”.

A systematic review of trauma-informed approaches deployed in American schools drew a similar conclusion. Published by M Shelley Thomas and Shantel Crosby from the University of Louisville and Judi Vanderhaar from the Kentucky Department of Education in 2019, the review found there was no dominant or formally agreed upon framework - for example, in 33 articles, there were 30 different practices - and no consistent determination of effectiveness.

Catriona O’Toole, a chartered psychologist and associate professor in the Department of Education at Maynooth University in Ireland, explains that research does point towards effective practice in standalone interventions, although there’s less on multi-tiered systems of support because they’re difficult to capture in study design.

‘We have to be realistic about what we’re expecting classroom teachers to be able to do’

So, should schools hold off any embrace of trauma-informed practice until the evidence is stronger?

For people like Trickey and O’Toole, there is still a place for the core ideas of trauma-informed practice - thinking about the underlying causes of behaviour, focusing on relationships and working to make young people feel safe - as long as they are being applied sensibly.

O’Toole suggests schools should approach trauma-informed practice not as a “tick box” list of rules but more as a series of guiding “principles”, which can be tailored to suit their context.

What these principles look like in practice will vary from school to school, but that’s the point, says Trickey.

“Even if people could agree on the principles, they would inevitably be applied differently - because one size doesn’t fit all,” he explains.

As for what these principles might be, Trickey suggests that a good starting point would be a 2007 study by Stevan E Hobfoll, a professor at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who gathered 20 key contributors to trauma research with whom he set out five evidence-based principles that should be at the heart of all trauma-informed practice.

Settings, they suggest, should promote a sense of safety, calm, a sense of self and collective efficacy, connectedness and hope. There are, the researchers say, many ways to “operationalise” these principles.

But doing so shouldn’t mean dispensing with boundaries, says Cathleen Halligan, an educational psychologist in Redbridge, London.

Where trauma-informed approaches fail, “it may be because there’s an emphasis on only one element of practice - for example, empathy and relationships - without having clear, containing boundaries and high expectations,” she explains.

“Or the other way around: so much emphasis on immovable boundaries, and unachievable expectations without the understanding, kindness and thinking about support,” she continues.

The importance of support

A lack of support for classroom teachers can also be a barrier to effective practice, adds O’Toole. Therefore, there is an onus on leaders to “create more structures for collective wellbeing, and to facilitate and resource CPD and time off for that”.

Halligan agrees that any professional development must go beyond a single Inset session, and says that staff should be supported across at least two terms to embed any changes.

“A standalone training session may spark interest, but it won’t drastically change practice. People need to see the approaches working, they need to be able to seek guidance on what to do with particular children in certain situations,” she says.

“It needs to be properly understood by everybody, and teachers need to be supported by psychologists and senior leaders with extensive knowledge.”

At the same time, leaders also need to be pragmatic about what they are expecting of staff, says Sam Strickland, principal of Duston School, an all-through setting in Northamptonshire.

The majority of teachers at Duston do not teach with a trauma-informed approach. However, the school does have a separate alternative provision for children with additional needs and, within this, there is trauma-informed care, explains Strickland.

“We have to be realistic about what we’re expecting classroom teachers to be able to do,” he says. Teachers need to be able to manage behaviour in a way that allows them to “execute the curriculum”, using a “toolkit of classroom management strategies” that are most appropriate for the students in front of them.

‘There is a massive misconception that a trauma-informed approach is the absence of rules, expectations and consequences’

However, the hope of advocates is that if we do get schools that want to be trauma informed to move to applying the core principles with more fidelity, then we will soon have more case studies of best practice.

“It has improved our outcomes for children over the course of our journey and we therefore believe we have evidence that this approach is successful,” says a headteacher of a secondary pupil referral unit and social, emotional and mental health needs school in the South of England, who wishes to remain anonymous.

The school says it has helped many mainstream schools in its local area improve outcomes with trauma-informed approaches, too.

“It has involved the application of neuroscience, therapeutic and relational approaches while still maintaining clear and safe boundaries with high expectations,” the headteacher says.

“It has been a six-year journey so far to commit to this but we are proof that when trauma-informed practice is done correctly and committed to as a vision, with staff being appropriately trained and the expectations being clear with the whole school community, then there can absolutely be positive results.”

Clare Cook is a freelance writer

For the latest research, pedagogy and practical classroom advice delivered directly to your inbox every week, sign up to our Teaching Essentials newsletter