PBIS and Trauma Informed Education Don't Mix

Why combining these two approaches is potentially dangerous

Image created by author

PBIS and TIE are mutually exclusive

Yesterday I wrote PBIS is Just ABA with a Nicer Name, in which I debunked PBIS’ claim their programs improve student mental health. At the end of that piece, I began exploring the six principles of trauma-informed care. As a refresher, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s six principles of trauma-informed care are:

1. safety

2. trustworthiness and transparency;

3. peer support;

4. collaboration and mutuality;

5. empowerment, voice, and choice; and

6. cultural*, historic, and gender issues.

*(Under cultural considerations, it’s imperative to ensure race, neurodivergence, and disability are included).

---

PBIS and TIE are fundamentally incompatible

In a very important article on PBIS and trauma-informed education, Kim & Venet concluded PBIS and trauma-informed practices are fundamentally incompatible. Mixing trauma-informed education with PBIS is ultimately harmful for students, especially students of colour and disabled students. In practice PBIS upholds or creates harm, and both reproduces and produces trauma.

I would (and did) argue that trying to mix trauma-informed care with behaviourism has the potential to be even more harmful than behaviourism alone. Incorporating select elements of trauma-informed care can obscure the problems inherent in behaviourism-based practices. By including terms like “trauma-informed” in their marketing, PBIS offers a false sense of security, potentially convincing administrators, staff, and parents the program is helpful rather than harmful.

It’s like a bait-and-switch where they promise you trauma-informed care, but instead you get behaviourism.