When Did 'Trauma-Informed' Become a Euphemism for Low Expectations?
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder discusses how the term 'trauma-informed' has been co-opted to justify lowering expectations for students.
Key Takeaways
- The term has been corrupted - 'Trauma-informed' now often means 'don't expect anything' rather than 'understand and support'
- Pity isn't kindness - Lowering expectations out of pity communicates that you don't believe in the student's potential
- Real support means high expectations with help - Genuinely trauma-informed practice provides additional support to meet high standards, not excuses to avoid them
Transcript
How did trauma-informed become basically a euphemism for low expectations?
I've seen a lot of comments to this effect that schools are basically removing all accountability for behavior in the name of being more trauma-informed or trauma-sensitive.
And that's very puzzling to me as someone who's familiar with the research on trauma.
I know what the research on trauma says, and I know there are some things we can do to make school a better place for students who've experienced trauma.
But nowhere in that research does it ever say no consequences is helpful to students who've experienced trauma.
Like if we just lower our expectations, that will improve students' lives.
It doesn't say that anywhere.
What it does say is that trauma is a big deal experienced in the school environment for students who already have trauma.
And I'm very concerned that we're exposing students to more trauma through the violence that's resulting from no consequences, from the removal of consequences for violent behavior.
So this idea that we can just kind of remove the consequences, remove expectations, remove anything that's going to challenge students and remove anything that's going to make us uncomfortable, I don't really think that's trauma-informed or trauma-sensitive.
I think that's just pity.
And pity is not a kind way to treat other people.
Pity is about relieving our own discomfort, alleviating the discomfort we feel when we see that a student is struggling, that a student is not always going to meet an expectation.
Like we want a way out, but we take the easy way out through pity when we say, well, rather than support you and hold you accountable and give you what you need to succeed and, you know, Sometimes kind of hold your feet to the fire if that's what you need.
You know, we've all had students come back and thank us for doing that.
We've had students come back to us years later and say, you know, especially if you're, I haven't been a high school teacher, but if you've been a high school teacher, I'm sure you've had students come back to you and say, thank you for helping me get my act together.
It is not kind to pity our students and have low expectations for them.
It is not going to set them up for success in life, and it's certainly not trauma-sensitive.
What it is when we alleviate our own guilt or just discomfort at the difficulties students face in their lives by lowering expectations is we make things worse for them, and we make our schools unsafe.
So if you're hearing this kind of conflation between trauma sensitive and no consequences or low expectations.
Let me know.
And I would encourage you to push back against that and say, really, like, where does the trauma informed literature, where does the research say we shouldn't have expectations for students who've experienced trauma?
Because every student that I'm aware of who has benefited from their education benefited from the high expectations and the accountability, not the low expectations.
Let me know what you think.