Trauma-informed education spread rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic and it’s now ascendant in Canadian K-12 education. Its origins go back more than two decades and were identified by British sociologist Frank Furedi in his powerful book, Therapy Culture, better known in the UK than here in North America. Widely viewed as “an unambiguously positive development,” the therapeutic ethos and its offshoot “trauma-informed practice” (TIP) have, according to American policy analyst Robert Pondiscio, extended the reach of education into students’ lives and expanded the role of teachers. While it’s recognized and openly debated in the United Kingdom and the United States, the phenomenon remains largely unexamined in Canada’s disaggregated provincial school systems.
One of the most trenchant critiques of contemporary social trends, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s 2019 book, The Coddling of the American Mind, tackled the contradictions inherent in education at all levels from pre-school to the universities. What the authors clearly identified was the “coddling of the mind” and the desire to weave a protective web of “safetyism” around today’s generation of students. Fierce critics of the rise of therapy culture in education like Furedi go much further, claiming that therapy culture draws sustenance from “trauma-informed” approaches, implants a culture of fear, and gives credence to claims that most students are vulnerable and need protection.
There’s mounting evidence to support the claim that education is now enveloped in social therapy culture. Over the past five years or more, public concerns about the effects of trauma—especially relative to school-aged students—have increased exponentially. Fueling much of the discussion is a screening tool that was developed in the mid-1990s, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale. It’s adoption as an early years intervention is a prime example of the priority now assigned to diagnosing and treating “trauma” affected children and introducing elementary school programs incorporating “mindfulness,” “self-regulation,” and suicide prevention. Few of these initiatives or programs have been properly evaluated and validated as effective in the field of teen mental health, and mass application in congregate settings carries certain identified risks
Overdiagnosis of children and teens with broadly-defined “mental health issues’ may well be an unrecognized problem. More than two-thirds of American students, according to Health and Human Services survey data, reportedly suffer one traumatic event before their sixteenth birthday. In the case of Canada, leading experts like Rosalynn M. Record-Lemon and Maria J. Buchanan, routinely claim that statistics show 76.1% of Canadians will experience at least one traumatic event in their lifetime. Many and perhaps most children and adults, before COVID-19, were said to be facing “psychological trauma” and life situations that “overwhelm the individual’s capacity to cope.” Maltreatment, family violence, bullying, natural disasters, illnesses and personal loss were linked to “pervasive psychological, physical and developments impacts.” All of this is commonly used as a rationale for the widespread adoption of Trauma-Informed Practice (TIP) in publicly-funded schools.
Two recent metadata reviews of trauma-informed approach in schools have damaged its claim to be evidence-based practice. The best-known study, conducted by St. Louis University social work professor Brandy R. Maynard and her research team, under the auspices of Campbell Reviews, examined some 9,102 potential research articles, and identified only 67 of the articles were independent research studies. None of the 67 articles met evidence-based research criteria: 49 articles did not use random controlled trials or quasi-experimental design methods; 12 did not examine the effects of a trauma-informed approach; and the remaining five examined only one aspect of a trauma-informed approach. These authors reached a rather stark conclusion: no school-based, trauma-informed research studies over the past ten years that were conducted using sound research methodologies such that the programs investigated could be objectively determined to be effective in addressing the trauma-related needs of school-aged students.
An authoritative research March 2019 article in Review of Research in Education reached similar conclusions. When three Kentucky researchers, M. Shelley Thomas, Shantel Crosby and Judi Vanderhaar, studied trauma-informed practices in schools over two decades, they found plenty of initiatives dedicated to reforming teaching practices, school climate, teacher training and ongoing professional development. “Empirical work” was “less established,” little of it came from education researchers, and, again, there was a lack of evidence demonstrating “the effectiveness of school-based supports” or their consistent application in schools.
The theoretical gaps, research deficiencies and questionable effectiveness of social-justice-centred trauma-informed school programs has also been exposed in a literature review in the 2021 International Journal of School Social Work. The three New Mexico University researchers, favourably disposed to such approaches, concluded that “the current theory of impact linking trauma-informed work and social justice work is not supported by evidence.” What was missing was “a socio-ecological model of trauma’ (SAMHSA 2014)” integrating psychological strategies into a broader initiative demonstrating an “understanding of families and staff as well as students.”
The Pandemic education crisis was accompanied by a profound catharsis transforming school systems, over two school years, for months on end, into protective spaces adhering to COVID-19 public health directives, and focused on providing a semblance of rough equity and support for students from disadvantaged or marginalized communities. In Ontario, it’s even spawned a new educational administration venture into “trauma-sensitive school leadership.”
What comes next? As families and schools gradually recover from “learning loss” and the collateral psycho-social effects, the almost exclusive emphasis on trauma-informed practice will likely subside. When it does, let’s hope that we see a revival of the effective schools movement holding out the promise of more focused, meaningful, purposeful and effective teaching and learning.
What explains the proliferation and staying power of “Trauma-Informed Education” in Canada’s provincial school systems? Will it survive the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic? Where is the evidence-based research in support of school-wide “trauma-informed” approaches? Should we be targeting such interventions where they will make a difference?
Educhatter 
After Covid catch-up and other extraneous efforts such as “trauma-informed” education run their course, Paul envisions a “revival of the effective schools movement holding out the promise of more focused, meaningful, purposeful and effective teaching and learning”.
It can’t be any too soon! Karen Chenoweth, speaking to a ResearchEd audience a few years back disputed the notion that it was family background that determined school achievement and instead stated that attention should be paid to effective schools studies. She decried “faddishness” and the lack of empirical rigour in evaluating programs.
It was Ron Edmonds, a Black professor, who in the 70-80s helped found a rather distinct effective schools movement that gained considerable interest for a short time. Why it so abysmally failed to gain traction is worth investigating — was it a natural fading of interest or was it actively scorned? Whatever, if you Google the term effective schools you will come across various checklists that enumerate anywhere from 5, 8 or more basic principles. These are worth exploring and each school and school board should actively develop such a statement of principles.
Edmonds, himself, stressed “one of the cardinal characteristics of effective schools is that they are as anxious to avoid things that don’t work as they are committed to implement things that do.” Where does trauma-informed education fit in?
Remember the story of “the miracle on the Hudson”? Pilot Sullenberger refused the “hero” label and insisted it was the “checklist” that saved 155 lives that day. Checklists do indeed save lives and help navigate crises. A published checklist at each school, would surely be a positive tool to guide school practice that students, educators, parents, and others can refer to. And get us back to basic traditional principles about schools’ purpose.
You are sharp, Tunya. I thought you would spot my passing reference to the Effective Schools movement. After listening to Karin Chenoweth at researchED Philly 2019, I asked her about Ron Edmonds and the ESM. All three of us still view it as the best whole-school improvement strategy. “Focus, focus, focus” on what matters. Trying to be “all things to all people” was what caused schools to lose their way.
I agree on the focus part, but there are so many demands on schools + fickle governments so what and how to choose as foci is still a big issue; e.g., recent controversy in Ontario about a new mandatory course in tech ed for grade 9.
Looking back over the COVID-19 Pandemic, I tried to figure out how “Trauma-Informed Practice” got so quickly adopted and then entrenched in North American school systems. What I discovered was the state of moral panic and the critical role of teacher advocacy for safe and health-proofed classrooms. That “Education International “ graphic promoting “soft skills,” outdoor play, and TIP was replicated everywhere in K-12 education.
This will not be your most popular comment. In fact, I can hear the ringing of ‘insensitive’ loud and clear already.
In our younger days, my siblings and I were often given tasks to perform where the outcome was clear but the methodology was either less so or completely absent. This was also the case when it came to maintaining items such as our bicycles and other important possessions.. If it was decided that the task was too difficult or we made the mistake of saying ‘I can’t’ or worse — ‘I don’t know what to do!’ there would be one answer from my father, mother or anyone of a similar age. And that was: ‘I guess you were never in the war’. Coddling, as we know it today, just didn’t exist in our world and I believe we were better off for it.
Your upbringing was similar to mine, Roger. My father and mother were heavily influenced by the Depression and the Second World War — and its life lessons. Work ethic, integrity and social responsibility were instilled in us. We were Dr Spock children, and that softened the firmness and stoicism. Coddling was still frowned upon, but — to be honest— we were much softer when guiding our own children. We also guarded against imparting unrecognized and unconscious prejudices from our parents’ generation. Thank you for reminding us of generational differences in child rearing and character development.
I have discovered — thanks to winning a copy of The Right to Read by J. H. Morrison courtesy of ResearchEd, 2022, Canada — that Benjamin Spock was one of the Frontier College labourer-instructors. One cannot but speculate as to the impact this had on his outlook on life. Coddling was not an option.
Glad you are enjoying Jim Morrison’s history of Frontier College, Roger. I spotted the reference to Benjamin Spock in the book and had a nice chat with Jim about it at his book launch. I loved the section on Bradwin and the back story about his classic book, Bunkhouse Men.
One theme that keeps cropping up in my commentaries on Student Behaviour policy and practice is the “mass application” of mental health intervention strategies, such as “trauma-informed practice,” “mindfulness,” and “self-regulation.” Fidget spinners, spin bikes, wobble stools, and yoga are just manifestations of such practices. It took me some time to see it whole and recognize that it reflected the incursion of “therapeutic education” and the medicalization of pedagogical practice.
If you want to hear the latest about coddling from Jonathan Haidt, REGISTER to tune in to the LIVESTREAM from UBC — April 20, 6:00 pm (BC time). https://lindinitiative.ubc.ca/speakers/jonathan-haidt/ Besides co-writing the book The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure he also wrote the bestseller The Righteous Mind: How Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.
Check the website for the mission of the Series of speakers. Basically — “This series not only explores some of the major factors fueling the rancor and divisiveness in American politics, but crucially it asks how can citizens and leaders find common ground across a range of political issues that divide them? Since Canadians are not immune to these forces, we too must ask how to sustain the respectful, honest, and deep conversations we need to address the substantive challenges facing democratic societies.”
Thanks for the head’s up about Jon Haidt’s upcoming talk, Tunya. Further evidence that Educhatter Blog is cutting-edge. (Tonue-in-cheeek)
Let’s not fall into the “myopic nostalgia trap” of imagining based on our personal memories that things were “great” in the “good old days”. In earlier generations whatever traumas or sufferings there were- real or imagined- we did not get bombarded with media about such things. There were rumours- some local and some cultural/religious- that circulated and still circulate.
An examination of a different period in time isn’t the same as saying ‘my parents spanked me and I turned out okay, ergo…’. Past practices can be measured and, as a result, be managed. At the same time, no one is suggesting what’s good for one must be good for all (unlike far too many educational policies). When I’m looking at options be they from a distant past or distant nation, it’s always viewed best with an open mind.
agree Roger- I was concerned with the reminiscences believed that were stated in previous posts. My direct experiences were with American and Canadian vets of Vietnam: lots of messes too often dealt with drugs rather than practices supported by research.
Too true that ed policies are too often declared as universal. In Canada we are often considered to be an American colony when it comes to schools and their policies.
Roger that.