Why Trauma-Informed Practice Should Be Mandatory Training for Teachers in English Schools

Step into any classroom in England today and you will find, alongside the noise of pencils and chatter, the quiet weight of children carrying invisible burdens. Behind the statistics of attainment and attendance lie the lived realities of pupils who have experienced neglect, domestic violence, loss, chronic poverty, or upheaval. For many of these children, the classroom is not just a place of learning—it is a daily test of survival.

Yet most teachers receive little to no training in recognising and responding to trauma. They are asked to manage behaviour without fully understanding its roots. They are expected to raise attainment while also managing distress, anger, and withdrawal. Without the lens of trauma-informed practice, teachers are left to interpret what they see in narrow terms: compliance or defiance, ability or inability, good behaviour or bad. That is why trauma-informed practice should not be an optional extra. It should be mandatory training for every teacher in England.

Understanding Trauma and its Impact

Trauma refers to overwhelming experiences that threaten a child’s sense of safety and stability. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)—such as abuse, neglect, or witnessing violence—can alter brain development, heighten stress responses, and disrupt emotional regulation. Neuroscience shows that trauma can keep the brain in a constant state of alert, flooding the body with stress hormones that make concentration, memory, and impulse control far more difficult.

In the classroom, this means that a pupil may lash out when asked to read aloud, shut down in the face of challenge, or walk out when confronted with discipline. Traditional approaches, which focus on sanctions and rewards, can backfire—escalating rather than calming the child’s response. The behaviour is not wilful defiance but a survival mechanism.

When trauma is not recognised or appropriately addressed in schools, it can have significant and lasting consequences for pupils’ education and wellbeing. Behaviour linked to trauma being interpreted as misbehaviour is often managed through sanctions and, ultimately, suspension/exclusion. National data show that children with experience of adverse childhood experiences are several times more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded.

Exclusion very rarely addresses the underlying cause of behaviour. Instead, it removes access to stability, routine, and supportive relationships that could help a pupil re-engage. The result is often a widening of academic gaps, reduced confidence, and lower future attainment.

Research also links exclusion to increased risks of poor mental health, unemployment, and contact with the criminal justice system which, in turn, are likely to increase the trauma burden yet further.

Even when pupils remain in school, unaddressed trauma can hinder progress. Difficulty concentrating, regulating emotions, or trusting adults can lead to inconsistent attendance and lower academic achievement. What may appear to be low motivation or poor behaviour is often a reflection of the neurological impact of chronic stress rather than a lack of ability or effort.

The Pandemic Effect

The Covid-19 pandemic poured accelerant on this fire. For some children, lockdown meant months trapped in unsafe homes without the safety valve of school. The Children’s Commissioner (2022) reported significant increases in domestic abuse and mental health referrals during lockdown. NHS Digital (2022) found that one in six children aged 7–16 now has a probable mental health disorder, up from one in nine in 2017.

The aftershocks are clear in schools. Government attendance data show that persistent absence (missing more than 10% of school sessions) rose to 22.3% in 2021/22—double pre-pandemic levels (DfE, 2023). Exclusions have also crept back upwards post-pandemic, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged and SEND pupils.

Teachers are being asked to manage this post-pandemic landscape of grief, instability, and heightened distress—but without trauma training, they are unequipped to meet this challenge.

The Cost of Ignoring Trauma

Failing to equip teachers with trauma-informed skills is not neutral; it carries real costs for our education system and into adulthood.

Children with unaddressed trauma are much less likely to meet their academic potential and are disproportionately represented in exclusion statistics. The Prison Reform Trust (2017) found that 63% of children in custody had been temporarily excluded, and 42% permanently excluded, before entering the justice system. Public health research shows that ACEs correlate strongly with poor long-term outcomes, from mental illness to chronic disease.

So, if schools cannot effectively intervene early, society pays later through the criminal justice system, the NHS, welfare support and under-employment.

The Current Gap in Training

Initial teacher education in England is crowded with requirements: adaptive teaching, curriculum knowledge, safeguarding procedures and assessment techniques. While training in these areas are mandatory aspects of the Core Content Framework for Initial Teacher Training, trauma awareness is not and, as a result, is patchy (DfE, 2019).

Many teachers first encounter trauma when faced with a child in crisis, with no framework for response beyond instinct and empathy. That empathy can, of course, be difficult when many teachers’ life experiences are far removed from the lives of those children carrying the most trauma.

The inconsistency is stark. Some schools embed trauma-informed principles across their policies; others have no systematic approach at all. This lottery leaves vulnerable children dependent on chance rather than guaranteed support.

Learning from Existing Models

Several local authorities and academy trusts in England have already piloted trauma-informed programmes with promising results. The Trauma Informed Schools UK programme in Cornwall, for example, reported reductions in exclusions, improved attendance, and stronger staff morale (TISUK, 2021). Staff trained through the programme described greater confidence in de-escalating behaviour, improved relationships with pupils, and a more consistent approach across schools.

Similar initiatives have been implemented in Bristol and Camden, where trauma-informed frameworks are embedded in behaviour policies and pastoral systems. These schools have seen measurable improvements in engagement, reductions in fixed-term exclusions, and more effective collaboration between education, health, and social care teams.

Some academy trusts have gone further by integrating trauma awareness into their staff induction and ongoing professional development. The Ventura Learning Trust and Wellspring Academy Trust, for instance, have adopted “relational practice” models, training all staff—from senior leaders to teaching assistants—in recognising stress responses and applying restorative approaches. Evaluation reports from these trusts show not only better pupil outcomes but also reduced staff burnout and turnover, suggesting benefits for workforce wellbeing as well as for students.

Internationally, the evidence base is even broader. In the United States, several states, including Washington and Massachusetts, have embedded trauma-informed practice into teacher training standards and school improvement frameworks. Schools adopting these models have reported lower rates of suspension and higher levels of student engagement. In Australia, the Berry Street Education Model has been rolled out across multiple states, demonstrating gains in attendance, literacy progress, and classroom climate.

In Scotland, the Compassionate and Connected Communities programme forms part of the national curriculum for health and wellbeing, linking trauma awareness to wider policy on inclusion and equity.

These examples illustrate that trauma-informed approaches are neither experimental nor peripheral—they are evidence-based frameworks with proven educational and organisational benefits. They show that when teachers are supported to understand the science of stress, schools can become calmer, more predictable environments in which both pupils and staff are better able to succeed.

Anticipating Objections—and the Cultural Story We Tell

There is a growing appreciation amongst professionals of the potential impact of trauma-informed practice. However, the harder obstacle in wider society may be cultural.

Britain has long been dominated by the idea that hard work can conquer all. From Victorian moral tales of self-help and thrift to modern political rhetoric about “meritocracy” and “levelling up,” the national story some of us tell ourselves insists that every child has an equal shot if only they apply themselves. A version of this message is being piped into many of us through social media algorithms too – online influencers preaching about the value of healthy habits, exercise, consistency and outworking your ‘competition’ may seem largely positive messages on the surface. However, they carry an implicit message that you can work your way out of any situation to better yourself and it could just be your fault if you are not ‘levelling up’ quickly or effectively enough, and your life is not as good as the polished, curated feeds we see every day.

So, if hard work alone should be enough, then trauma-informed training looks like indulgence—making excuses instead of demanding effort. This is why mandatory trauma training is a difficult political sell: it asks us to admit that childhoods are not equally safe, opportunities are not equally accessible, and resilience is not evenly distributed. It challenges the comforting fiction that all of us start from the same line on the same track.

Conclusion

However, anyone who has worked in schools for any time at all knows that children do not leave their experiences at the school gate, and the playing field is not a level one. The classroom is where the fallout of trauma is played out, often in the language of behaviour, and if teachers lack the training to recognise this, the result is predictable: exclusion, disengagement, and cycles of disadvantage that perpetuate and are felt by our whole society for generations.

Making trauma-informed practice mandatory would send a clear message: that we take seriously the wellbeing of our children, the capacity of our teachers and our desire to improve public health more broadly.

Education is not just about transmitting knowledge; it is about building lives. To build lives for those scarred by trauma, teachers need more than goodwill—they need training. Mandatory trauma-informed practice is not a luxury; it is a necessity if we are going to stop letting down so many young people.

References 

• Children’s Commissioner (2022). Annual Report on Childhood.

• Department for Education (2019). Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy.

• Department for Education (2023). Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions and Suspensions in England.

• Department for Education (2023). Pupil Attendance in Schools in England.

• Felitti, V. J. et al. (1998). Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

• Hughes, K. et al. (2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health.

• NHS Digital (2022). Mental Health of Children and Young People in England.

• Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State (2020). Trauma-Informed Schools Training Modules.

• Perry, B. D. (2006). The neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and Trauma.

• Prison Reform Trust (2017). In Care, Out of Trouble.

• Trauma Informed Schools UK (2021). Evaluation of Cornwall Schools Programme.

• Bellis, M.A. et al. (2019). Adverse Childhood Experiences and their impact on health-harming behaviours in the UK. Public Health Wales.