This presentation focuses on approaches, principles, and lines of discourses that enable and yield to label in two different but excessively related educational trends, namely, Trauma Informed Pedagogy and Inclusive Education. Both are oftentimes misread by focusing on selected and labeled persons: Inclusive education in some interpretations is solemnly geared towards disability (mix-up with special needs or integration practices), while trauma-informed practices are misread as an approach focused on “traumatized people” and “trauma victims” (trauma-pedagogy). On the one hand, trauma is often associated with specific ideas and images. Reductionist views mainly consider family violence, flight, or wars to be the primary causes of trauma, and labeling people as violence-victim or war-victim happen commonly (Zembylas 2020). Such views however can also ignore other life situations that involve stressful experiences that can be traumatizing, but not visible enough to label the person as traumatized. On the other hand, inclusive pedagogy suffers under the notion that it targets the people “who are excluded or segregated”. Rather than creating an inclusive environment that serves everybody, inclusive pedagogy is overshadowed by the practices that concentrate on specific groups who are identified as “needed to be included”, which yields to labeling as well. These misrepresentations point to the need to further boost and focus on a shift in these perspectives. The implementation of holistic approaches hence would imply that preparing environments that enable learning for everyone should be free of diagnosis or label. 

It is important within the educational context (and all others) to understand how diverse the causes, experience and manifestations of trauma can be (Streeck-Fischer, 2006). We discuss that trauma can affect each one of us and happens through no fault of our own. Furthermore, Zito and Martin (2016) argue that traumatization should not simply be understood as a direct consequence of trauma, which they refer to as an “event factor”. It can also be said that in systems with an inherent power imbalance, such as schools, there is also a high potential for trauma. Hence, a key feature of trauma can be the experience of powerlessness or impotence (Wang et al. 2023). Hence, a traumatized person can be labelled as “powerless” or “weak”. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy practices create a group of students that are less powerful than the others in the school context or a group that needs to be attended or even saved. 

To understand the potential risk of labeling in both of these educational trends, a system-critical and deconstructive perspective is needed. A holistic pair of glasses are required to understand the emergence, spread, and reinforcement of labeling in contexts of asymmetrical relationships such as schools. This unequal distribution of power also affects learning and teaching spaces, especially in the institution of school. Considering the rise of populist political power in Europe, the future of the implementation of inclusive pedagogy or a trauma-informed teaching is concerning. Pointing to refugee or “war victim” numbers that should be accommodated in the European school systems or the number of schools that should be funded to be more inclusive are used excessively as propaganda material. While labeling of these groups is getting more visible, the attention to the non-visible potential risk factors for trauma or non-visible disabilities is decreasing.

This presentation is based on comparing the two conceptual underpinnings of inclusive education and trauma-informed learning contexts, focusing on German-speaking sources (Subasi Singh et al. forthcoming). Both approaches deal with issues related to embodiments, de-categorization, and holistic approaches to eliminate labeling and stigmatizing tendencies while creating learning experiences for all. It can be said that being fixated on the aftermath of a traumatic event and labeling the traumatized as a trauma victim can be considered trauma ignorance (Koureas, 2008). This perspective does not do justice to the needs of those affected or the resources of those involved. The central consequence of this is that the trauma is exacerbated in those primarily affected and not in the system that creates it. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy is still under the impact of an individualistic perspective that considers disability as a personal issue that is embodied in the disabled person. These embodiments of “having a disability” and “being traumatized” are often associated with specific (Eurocentric) labels and representations (Zembylas 2020), which ignore invisible disabilities and unknown forms of trauma or associated behaviors. Embodiment or display are oftentimes associated with specific labeling procedures, implying that certain people will be left out of support structures if not labeled (z.B. Demetriou 2020). Both approaches go far beyond, and they imply holistic implementation with cross-institutional involvement and collaboration as well as systemic change. This highlights the need for an integrative and systemic approach to dealing with trauma in schools. Instead of simply looking at the behavior of pupils in isolation and pathologizing it, the school system itself should be questioned, adapted, and also understood in some historical context (Keilson,1992). It requires a comprehensive and inclusive trauma-informed approach that is both preventative and reactive and promotes the health and well-being of all involved. Only through such a holistic approach, the individual and labelling exacerbation of trauma or being disabled can be effectively prevented.

By comparing both concepts’ developments, similar lines of misrepresentation of the actual aims can be identified and described. These findings can inform educational practice and training related to these two corresponding approaches. Trauma-informed approaches can serve as a lens to identify educational lacks in established practices (Liasidou 2022). As inclusive education perspectives emphasize the need to apply evidence-based pedagogical practices to meet the needs of students with special educational needs and/or disabilities, empirically validated links between trauma and disability should inform inclusive education theories, policies, and practices (Miller & Santos 2020). Trauma has many dimensions and manifestations, ranging from somatic/medical, psychological, sexual, cultural, historical, trans/intergenerational, and structural (e.g. racism, disability), but also other dimensions that precede, coexist with, and can be a consequence of disability and impairment (Liasidou, 2022). Trauma can therefore be considered a limiting factor (Thomas, 2013), as it has been empirically shown to impair physiological, cognitive, and psychological functioning (Levenson, 2017). Hence, trauma-informed practices can add to the repertoire of knowledge of informed, inclusive educators as they provide ideas on how to prepare learning environments. The aim is to bring about sustainable change (systemic change) through a structured and inclusive approach that both promotes the emotional well-being of students and strengthens the entire school environment. However, the first step is and remains the vision of a new school culture, which is a “statement that schools should hold themselves accountable to on their journey” (Missouri Department of Mental Health, 2019, p. 10).

Demetriou, K. (2020). Special Educational Needs Categorisation Systems: To Be Labelled or Not? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(5), 1772–1794. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1825641 Levenson, J. S. (2017). Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice. Social Work, 62(2), 105–113. doi:10.1093/sw/swx001. Liasidou, A. (2022). Decolonizing inclusive education through trauma-informed theories. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 24(1), 277-288. Keilson, H., Sarphatie, H. R., Bearne, Y. T., Coleman, H. T., & Winter, D. T. (1992). Sequential traumatization in children: A clinical and statistical follow-up study on the fate of the Jewish war orphans in the Netherlands. Magnes Press. Koureas, G. (2008). Trauma, space and embodiment: the sensorium of a divided city. Journal of War & Culture Studies, 1(3), 309-324. Subasi Singh et al. (forthcoming). Die Trauma-Informierte Schule. Ein Handbuch. Kohlhammer. Missouri Department of Mental Health. (2019). Missouri model for trauma-informed schools. https://dmh.mo.gov/media/pdf/missouri-model-trauma-informed-schools Streeck-Fischer, A. (2006). Trauma und Entwicklung. Schattauer, Stuttgart. Thomas, C. (2013). Disability and impairment. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling Barriers-Enabling Environments (pp. 9–16). London: Sage. Wang, S. K., Feng, M., Fang, Y., Lv, L., Sun, G. L., Yang, S. L., ... & Chen, H. X. (2023). Wolpow Psychological trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma-related depression: A mini-review. World Journal of Psychiatry, 13(6), 331-339. Zembylas, M. (2020). Emotions, affects, and trauma in classrooms: Moving beyond the representational genre. Research in Education, 106(1), 59-76. https://doi-org.proxy.bnl.lu/10.1177/0034523719890367 Zito, D. & Martin E. (2016). Umgang mit traumatisierten Flüchtlingen. Beltz, Weinheim.