• We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
  • Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.

News Teaching and Trauma article... the frustration continues! :P

Status
Not open for further replies.

Digz

Gold Member
So, I know this article is specific to teaching, but I read articles like this often and it's soooo annoying.

The How and Why of Trauma-Informed Teaching

I won't begin on the terms like 'trauma-informed' because I've ranted about that before, but what irritates me most in this article is 'trauma-affected kids'. In teaching, when it comes to those with disabilities there is a rule that states all language should be person-first, as a disability doesn't define a person. So, one would say 'children with special needs', not 'special needs children.' It's considered disrespectful to put the disability part first.

I bet you can already tell what's made me angry? Why do those children/people that have experienced trauma not get afforded such respect? Trauma doesn't define a person any more than a disability does. Grrrrrrr!
 
As someone involved in the world of disability rights, I would disagree that disability language is all that clear, or a good model for trauma language. I have had someone call me "person with a disability" in a way that was really disrespectful and someone else who called me "disabled" or even lightly teased me as a "gimp" and yet done it in a way that I felt included and appreciated and loved. In sports, the same kind of applies. If someone called me a runner, vs someone who runs, I really don't care. I care about how they treat me.

There is also a big debate between the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. The medical model focuses on what's wrong with the person that if medical science was advanced enough it could cure or remedy. The medical model calls it "a person with a disability." None of this is bad or wrong at all, but it has limits. Not every disability has a cure, or a cure worth the risks of further harm. It also supposes there is a human with no limits and devalues the role of society valuing different abilities. The social model looks more at what tools the person needs for success and maximizing abilities. They tend to use all kinds of terms like "disabled person." A good example: I have a friend who is deaf. She speaks of "the deaf." She does not find it an insult but empowering. Some demand she is a "person with a hearing impairment" and push for her to get a cochlear implant correct her hearing impairment as the solution to her disability, not understanding all the problems and lack of cure. When people just accept she's deaf, it's easier for everyone. There is a whole subculture for people who are deaf too.

I am hesitant to say disability is like trauma. I was born with an incurable disability. It's how I am. It's not something I see myself being victimized by having. I wish often and much I did not have a disability, and it gets really hard at times, but that's different than feeling victimized by disability. I know others do feel victimized by disability, but for me, that mindset feels like it disempowers me to not take action and seek tools to succeed. I see it as just another characteristic about me that I have to manage and deal with to get through life. It's like if I was very short, I would hope I would not feel like a victim of being short, like it was something done to me, but rather just another way of being human and a need to get a ladder. The social model has influenced my thinking in this way. My disability is a medical condition. But the real barriers are often not the medical condition. It's like for the short person who grabs the ladder, if they were shamed for doing that or ran into a lack of ladders in society. For me, the real barriers to having a disability have been the social aspects of it, not the physical. I call myself disabled. Just like I would call myself tall. It takes out the "jmh is sick" aspect to it that leads to unwanted pity.

If there is a classroom with young children in it, we would call them young children. We would all know that age is not the defining factor of the children. If there is a classroom with traumatized children in it, the same applies.

In fact, the article post takes it even a step further and doesn't separate out children and traumatized children.
Adopt a “universal approach,” suggested the nonprofit Zero to Three, and “assume all children are trauma-affected and need social and emotional learning instruction and support.”... The trick, according to Mathew Portell, principal of the trauma-informed school Fall-Hamilton ElemeTntary in Nashville, is to never lose sight of the individual student: “Trauma affects children in so many different ways. Some kids are reactive while others are reserved. It is key to know the students’ stories in order to know how to support them.”

While only a small percent of people and children who have been through trauma end up with PTSD, and not every child goes through big "T" trauma... seems like a good thing to have teachers thinking about and equipped to handle trauma or trauma-related behaviors. It probably helps them see the whole student, not just the behavior, much better. It's a lot better than what I grew up with going to school injured from trauma, even crying to teachers twice, and telling them what happened, and no one doing anything. Is the approach of the article perfect? No. Is it a good discussion to be having? Yes.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply and discussion. I in no way think disability and trauma are the same, but I personally still do not like the label 'trauma kids' or trauma whatever. Each person may differ, but I find it offensive. For me, my trauma does not define me and I really dislike trauma being put at the forefront of who I am.
When it comes to assuming all children are trauma-affected, on the face of it I see this as a well-intended act, but I also see it as causing a lack of understanding and causing other issues within education. One of the major problems is, under this model trauma is often not seen as complex, teacher education is undertaken by other teachers who have been to one Professional Development on the subject and this contributes to the expansion of the definition of trauma itself, which I view as problematic in genuinely understanding those children that are subject that original definition.
The positive thing about this article is speaks of looking to individual children and their reactions, but then it also suggests taking a 'universal approach'. Good teaching should involve a supportive, caring environment with social and emotional learning for individualised children... this doesn't need a trauma label. It should be there for all children, regardless. The use of the term in such a generalised way leads to so many misunderstandings and negative comparisons. In fact, under this 'universal approach', although they speak of children reacting in different ways, the majority of children identified are those that react in a 'fight' mode, and a lot of this I think is because 'universal' leads to a generalised approach, whether intended or not.
Essentially, in most ways I support the exact same model, but the terminology I think needs to be thought about more carefully to reduce unintended negative side-effects and allow for a better understanding of the complex nature of trauma.

Anyway, I've kind of gone off on a tangent here. It is nice to hear your perspective one the topic. And certainly a lot of attitudes have changed for the better since you and I were at school (I'm so sorry to hear of your experience). The sad thing is, however, as things currently stand I would not be identified at all although I really needed a lot more support than I showed. There were signs however, and if those signs were understood and trauma was viewed as complex, then there is a much stronger chance that a child like me could be identified and given more targeted support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Donation drives

2026 Donation Goal

Goal
$1,800.00
Earned
$910.00
This donation drive ends in
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  50.6%

Trending content

Featured content

Back
Top Bottom