Digz
Gold Member
This is a bit of an unusual post, but I am interested in peoples' opinion on this topic.
I am a school teacher and a survivor of childhood trauma. In schools there is a push for teachers to understand trauma, which I see as a really good thing.
However, as a survivor I often question the way they are going about this. The education of teachers is primarily undertaken by other lead teachers who have been to meetings to learn a bit about trauma and have done some limited reading. I have never seen a trained psychologist educating teachers on what trauma is and its effects. This has always concerned me, knowing how complex it is. Different teachers seem to have different ideas on how trauma is defined, for example. Some believe divorce is a form of trauma, some don't. Some believe trauma is anything that is viewed as traumatic from the child's perspective. While awareness is good for teachers to have, I sometimes wonder how good it is if there is not real understanding?
Within the teaching profession there are now key terms that are used in this area, specifically 'Trauma-Informed Practice' or 'Looking through a trauma-lense'. These terms are meant to mean that when we plan to teach we should plan in a way that ensures it is okay for any child who has suffered trauma. The latter term is about looking through the eyes of a child of trauma to see what would effect them. While these terms are very well intended and coming from a place of wanting to help children when they are at school, I sometimes question their validity. Sure, there are some things you could do that are likely to help most children of trauma, such as not yelling - although, I would think that would be best for all children in general. But, surely there is no one-size-fits-all practice that you can apply to make everything okay? It's not like it's possible to know all their triggers. The approach would surely vary depending on whether the child is more likely to fight, flight or freeze. Although as it stands within education the children identified as having suffered trauma are mainly those that exhibit 'fight' symptoms, partly because they are most difficult to manage, and partly because with an awareness of trauma but not a deep understanding of what it is and how it presents, these children tend to exhibit the signs staff know to be trauma-related.
I guess, if I was to be honest, I find some of the terms and approaches offensive as a survivor. There is no way the term 'Autism-Informed Practice' would be used in schools, as it is recognised to be a very complex disorder with varying difficulties and experienced in different ways. I think, those with autism would find it offensive. Surely though, trauma is the same? I guess one big difference I see is that the autistic community would likely be consulted in these matters.
If I'd been consulted as a survivor, I would say that these terms project the idea that all those with trauma are the same, have the same issues. I would say that it is not possible to 'look through a trauma lense' - whose trauma lense? I would say that having lead teachers with a small bit of understanding educate hundreds of teachers is misguided and doesn't say to me that you really want teachers to understand this deeply And I would tell them that to me this concept of some kind of structure applied to all children of trauma, with terms such as these is offensive.....
But am I being overly sensitive? Am I the only one who would think this or feel this way about it?
I am a school teacher and a survivor of childhood trauma. In schools there is a push for teachers to understand trauma, which I see as a really good thing.
However, as a survivor I often question the way they are going about this. The education of teachers is primarily undertaken by other lead teachers who have been to meetings to learn a bit about trauma and have done some limited reading. I have never seen a trained psychologist educating teachers on what trauma is and its effects. This has always concerned me, knowing how complex it is. Different teachers seem to have different ideas on how trauma is defined, for example. Some believe divorce is a form of trauma, some don't. Some believe trauma is anything that is viewed as traumatic from the child's perspective. While awareness is good for teachers to have, I sometimes wonder how good it is if there is not real understanding?
Within the teaching profession there are now key terms that are used in this area, specifically 'Trauma-Informed Practice' or 'Looking through a trauma-lense'. These terms are meant to mean that when we plan to teach we should plan in a way that ensures it is okay for any child who has suffered trauma. The latter term is about looking through the eyes of a child of trauma to see what would effect them. While these terms are very well intended and coming from a place of wanting to help children when they are at school, I sometimes question their validity. Sure, there are some things you could do that are likely to help most children of trauma, such as not yelling - although, I would think that would be best for all children in general. But, surely there is no one-size-fits-all practice that you can apply to make everything okay? It's not like it's possible to know all their triggers. The approach would surely vary depending on whether the child is more likely to fight, flight or freeze. Although as it stands within education the children identified as having suffered trauma are mainly those that exhibit 'fight' symptoms, partly because they are most difficult to manage, and partly because with an awareness of trauma but not a deep understanding of what it is and how it presents, these children tend to exhibit the signs staff know to be trauma-related.
I guess, if I was to be honest, I find some of the terms and approaches offensive as a survivor. There is no way the term 'Autism-Informed Practice' would be used in schools, as it is recognised to be a very complex disorder with varying difficulties and experienced in different ways. I think, those with autism would find it offensive. Surely though, trauma is the same? I guess one big difference I see is that the autistic community would likely be consulted in these matters.
If I'd been consulted as a survivor, I would say that these terms project the idea that all those with trauma are the same, have the same issues. I would say that it is not possible to 'look through a trauma lense' - whose trauma lense? I would say that having lead teachers with a small bit of understanding educate hundreds of teachers is misguided and doesn't say to me that you really want teachers to understand this deeply And I would tell them that to me this concept of some kind of structure applied to all children of trauma, with terms such as these is offensive.....
But am I being overly sensitive? Am I the only one who would think this or feel this way about it?