The government’s behaviour tsar has urged caution over adopting trauma-informed approaches, but being a trauma-informed school is not about being “soft” on pupil behaviour – in fact it is challenging for all concerned. Virtual school head Darren Martindale explains
Image: Adobe Stock -

A lot has been written about attachment-aware and trauma-informed practices in education in recent years. And while these two areas are not exactly the same, there are a lot of commonalities.

In fact, a useful term has been developed for such approaches and the work that is being done to promote them in schools: TIAAS, which stands for trauma-informed and attachment-aware schools.

TIAAS refers to a range of inclusive pedagogical practices, and their basis in human psychology and brain development.

While many care and education settings have developed their understanding of attachment and trauma as the basis for a sound, rational approach to supporting many children who struggle with behaviour and emotional wellbeing, it has received an increasing amount of attention lately, as well as a certain amount of criticism.

Not least, the government’s behaviour “tsar” Tom Bennett recently posted on X (Twitter):

“Trauma-informed practice has become this season’s behavioural Brain Gym. In the wild, it has become 100 different things, justifying 100 different approaches. Be very cautious about adopting this without caution.”

At the same, the Home Office and the Youth Endowment Fund have announced they are investing £5.8m in four projects to find out whether trauma-informed practice is effective at keeping children safe from violence and reducing exclusions (YEF, 2023).

The investment has been made in response to concerns that there is little robust evidence of the effectiveness of trauma-informed training and support.

But what, I wonder, could Mr Bennett mean by the suggestion that trauma-informed practice has been growing “in the wild”?

The reality is that many schools and other education settings have been learning about this area for a number of years, informing (and informed by) their increasing awareness of the importance of psychology in teaching.

Is this the theoretical jungle that Mr Bennett refers to: a drive toward more inclusive practice and an understanding that we are not just teaching maths, geography, or music – we are teaching children?

 

Attachment-aware

In an attempt to navigate this educational savanna, let’s go back to the term TIAAS. What does trauma-informed, attachment-aware mean?

Attachment was described by psychologist John Bowlby as the “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings” (Bowlby, 1969). The quality of the earliest and most fundamental relationship – usually between mother and baby – creates connections in the brain which affect the way we view ourselves and the world in later years.

If we have not had that deep, early experience of love and empathy, we may not be able to feel it ourselves in the usual way. We might not be able to control our own feelings and actions in later life.

Such children can come to view themselves as worthless or undeserving, and adults as threatening or untrustworthy. The world can seem like a treacherous place to them and they might push adults away on the assumption that they will be rejected again.

Attachment difficulties can affect the way the brain processes information, how a person responds to challenges, and their ability to build and maintain healthy relationships. It isn’t hard to imagine how a child with these issues might struggle with the demands of the school day. Indeed, most of us who have worked in a classroom have seen these behaviours enacted time and again.

 

Trauma-informed

Trauma can be defined as “an event, a series of events or set of circumstances that is experienced as physically or emotionally harmful or life-threatening, that overwhelms a person’s ability to cope and has lasting adverse effects on their mental, physical, social and emotional or spiritual wellbeing” (see Treisman, 2018).

Trauma impacts on brain development (see McLean, 2016), particularly on the child’s ability to regulate their emotions and manage stressful situations. I find it hard to see how that wouldn’t impact on a child’s educational experience, and why those children would not require specific, trauma-informed strategies to enable them to cope, thrive and achieve.

Writing in SecEd, Dr Pooky Knightsmith has stated that “trauma rewires the brain”. She continued: “When we are in danger our thinking, speaking brains shut down and we go into fight, flight, freeze or faint mode. When that happens repeatedly or continuously this can end up as a default response.”

As Dr Knightsmith pointed out, however: “Brains are plastic and every single time a child has a positive experience or interaction a little bit more work is being done to move towards a brain whose default wiring is not a fear response.”

So, the good news is that a traumatic start in life does not make a negative outcome an inevitability.

Trauma and attachment difficulties can, however, make the journey a lot more challenging, and put the outcome in jeopardy if a child is not consistently supported in the right ways.

 

The four projects

Despite scepticism by some, the new research into trauma-informed approaches has been welcomed by, among others, the policing minster Chris Philp, who sees it as a way of helping to support children in managing their trauma and avoiding a life of criminality.

Jon Yates, a former DfE special advisor who now runs the Youth Endowment Fund, said training delivered through the funded projects “could help more children to access the right support early and prevent problems later in life”. The projects are:

  • Knowledge Change Action and Warren Larkin Associates: Training whole school and leadership teams to have a better understanding of trauma and attachment needs.
  • Trauma-Informed Schools UK: Supporting secondary school staff to create a trauma-informed, mentally healthy school community that fosters psychological safety.
  • Bridgend County Borough Council: Training for practitioners across youth justice, edge of care, youth development and early help in a “trauma recovery model” framework.
  • National Children’s Bureau and Leap Confronting Conflict: Training social work teams to understand and use trauma-informed practices, including aiming to improve the stability of foster care placements.

The suggestion that these approaches are new and based on little or no evidence is, in my view, unfair.

The Rees Centre at the University of Oxford has conducted several research projects in this area over the last few years, not least its evaluation of the Attachment Aware Schools Programme (Sebba et al, 2015 to 2018).

The programme was developed as a partnership between Bath Spa University, Bath and North East Somerset Council, and the National College for Teaching and Leadership and involved a range of third sector organisations, attachment specialists, and schools.

The Rees Centre evaluations focused on three initiatives aimed at increasing attachment and trauma awareness in schools in Bath and North East Somerset in 2015 and 2016, in Leicestershire in 2016 and 2017, and in Stoke on Trent in 2016 and 2017. A total of 52 schools were involved covering all educational phases and including mainstream, special, and alternative provision. The evaluations found:

  • Participants described changes in their practice, in particular recognising emotions while managing behaviours, and changing communication styles and the language used with pupils and other staff.
  • School staff and pupils described the school environment as having become calmer and more nurturing.
  • Staff and pupils gave examples of non-teaching staff’s positive responses and effective approaches.
  • The positive impact on pupils’ wellbeing was evidenced by both staff and pupils.
  • Senior leader commitment, support and resource allocation was crucial to effective engagement in the programme and the impact in school.

In addition, the project highlighted several areas that need to be targeted in order to see sustainable improvements:

  • Initial teacher training – very few teacher training programmes currently address attachment and the effects of trauma.
  • Professional development of all school staff is needed as they are all involved in responding to behaviour.
  • Training for governors – the few who participated in the evaluation seemed relatively unaware of the issues and weren’t engaged in these developments in school.
  • Adults outside school with whom vulnerable pupils are in contact – parents, foster carers and social workers need to be adopting an approach consistent with that being implemented in schools.

 

Further support and evidence

ARC is a charity working to improve knowledge and awareness in this area and campaigning for better whole school workforce training on the importance of attachment relationships in children’s development and the impact of trauma.

ARC argues that to support Covid recovery and build resilience, relational approaches in school need far greater prominence in government policy.

One of many reports that ARC draws on is the Timpson Review of School Exclusion, which was commissioned by the DfE and reported in 2019, and which recommended that education settings should receive “expert training on the underlying causes of poor behaviour, including attachment, trauma and speech, language and communication needs, among others” (Timpson, 2019).

As one headteacher said: “Even if we were to express it in terms of crude economics (and it is about far more than that) there is no way a school can afford not to be doing this work.” (ARC, 2021)

Indeed, the DfE has supported the Alex Timpson Attachment and Trauma Awareness in Schools Project in the past, recognising the benefits that it can have on pupil engagement and wellbeing (see Feinstein et al, 2022), and it suggests attachment and trauma training as potential solutions in its statutory guidance for virtual school heads, whose role is to promote the education of children in care and previously in care (DfE, 2018).

 

My own experience

On a personal level, I have had countless conversations with teachers and leaders in education settings, going back several years, about how the advice given around TIAAS rings unerringly true of so many vulnerable pupils.

Clearly, this is not just some spurious, new-fangled idea. Also, it is not only about “keeping pupils safe” – though it can certainly (in my view) help to do that.

It is about improving learning for vulnerable pupils (in particular) through flexible, creative, and responsive pedagogy. And even if we choose to see it as a relatively “new” approach, given the challenges that many schools face – exclusions, rising persistent absence, high staff turnover, increasing concerns over behaviour and mental health etc – isn’t it time to try something new?

 

In practice

What does a trauma-informed, attachment-aware school look like in practice?

TIAAS is driven by neurobiology, multi-layered, and views all behaviour as communication. Relationships are prioritised, with the aim of strengthening trust, connection and communication between pupils and staff.

As educators, we behave with curiosity, empathy, and compassion. Education is not didactic and “top-down”. Rather, it is a collaborative process. It also emphasises the importance of staff being properly trained and supported to manage the effects of “secondary trauma” or the stress that they are likely to experience themselves as a result of the trauma that they are responding to.

To be clear, this isn’t about being “soft” on pupil behaviour. A TIASS approach is challenging for all.

Schools need to re-evaluate their policies and practice through a trauma-focused lens, sometimes moving beyond traditional models of behaviour management, avoiding strategies that risk shaming, excluding, or undermining young people.

Neither is this primarily about “bolt-on” approaches or interventions. It requires a whole-school ethos, wholeheartedly adopted so that it becomes part of the school’s DNA.

School vision and ethos, the physical environment, leadership and management, staff wellbeing and development, policies and procedures, the language used by staff and pupils, and connections with the wider community should all be carefully reviewed as part of a TIASS approach.

On a micro-level, everyday practice in the classroom can involve:

  • Setting small, timed tasks, gradually increasing in duration.
  • Letting the pupil know you will get back to them and when that will be.
  • Making sure you do get back to them – if you get distracted acknowledge that.
  • Avoiding the temptation to over-help. They need to experience frustration to develop problem-solving skills.
  • Acknowledging how they may feel when working.
  • Having a key adult for support
  • A clearly marked routine and structure to classes.
  • Using visual timetables, if appropriate.
  • Warning of any changes in advance, if possible (many vulnerable pupils can struggle with transition).
  • Giving pupils a time-out card (if necessary) to avoid them dysregulating in class.

Asking for help, accepting help, relaxing, resolving conflict, accepting approval or affection and having fun – these skills might be very new to some children, so they will need time and support to master them.

Remember that we are challenging negative assumptions that have been hard-wired into the child’s brain. Give them regular opportunities to experience success and show them concrete evidence of it (but be wary of giving too much praise, too soon).

Another well-established strategy is “emotion coaching”, an approach developed by psychologist John Gottman (1997) which supports young people to manage their own behaviour by helping them to understand the different emotions they experience, why they occur, and how to handle them. The mantra is “connection before correction”:

  1. Recognise and validate the child’s feelings, empathise with what they are experiencing: “I can see you’re frowning and you’re kicking the wall and you’re angry. I would be angry too if I didn’t want to do something.” (co-regulation)
  2. Containment – the setting of appropriate boundaries: “…but doing that is not okay. We can’t behave like that, even if we’re annoyed, because it’s not safe.”
  3. Finally, we problem-solve, exploring a different course of action: “Next time you’re feeling like this, what could you do? How do you think you will react if this happens again?”

Of course, we must approach any model through an appropriately critical lens. We need a diversity of approaches. We shouldn’t always assume that when (for example) a looked-after pupil is experiencing difficulties that these are always attachment/trauma-related. They may be a result of another unmet learning need, an environmental factor, or a combination of the above.

 

Final thoughts

Hopefully, the new YEF-led research projects will increase the evidence-base for TIAAS and help even more schools to understand it as one very important approach in their toolbox of many.

 

Further information & resources