Andrew Howard, Executive Headteacher (SEMH), New Bridge Group Multi Academy Trust, UK
Introduction and context
There has been sustained concern within UK education policy and research regarding the increasing prevalence and complexity of SEMH needs among children and young people. National guidance highlights that mental health difficulties can significantly impact behaviour, attendance and attainment, and emphasises the responsibility of schools to create environments that promote emotional wellbeing alongside academic learning (DfE, 2018; Weare, 2015). For many students identified with SEMH needs, classrooms can become sites of stress, threat or exclusion, rather than spaces of learning and belonging.
Historically, educational responses to SEMH have been heavily influenced by behaviourist traditions that prioritise compliance and behavioural control (Cole et al., 2012). However, there is increasing recognition that behaviours associated with SEMH often represent adaptive responses to trauma, unmet needs or disrupted relational experiences (Perry, 2006). From this perspective, behaviour is best understood as communication rather than defiance.
This case study explores how the Springboard Project has developed a classroom-embedded approach to SEMH support that moves beyond reactive behaviour management. Instead, it positions classrooms as relational and regulating environments where emotional safety is a prerequisite for learning. Specifically, the article draws on observational evidence, staff reflective accounts and practice documentation to examine four dimensions of classroom-embedded SEMH support: the physical and sensory environment, relational practice, curriculum flexibility and integrated in-class support.
Setting and cohort description
The Springboard Project is a specialist SEMH provision serving students in Key Stages 4 and 5. Students are typically referred following significant disruption to their educational trajectories, including exclusion, prolonged absence, school refusal or placement breakdowns. Many present with complex profiles that include anxiety, emotional dysregulation, attachment difficulties and overlapping neurodevelopmental needs. It is important to recognise that neurodevelopmental differences like ADHD and autism are not caused by trauma and should not be understood as such; rather, they frequently co-occur with SEMH needs and independently shape how students experience and respond to classroom environments. The approaches described in this article are designed to support students across this range of needs, and not solely those whose difficulties are rooted in adverse experiences.
Consistent with national and international research, a significant proportion of students have experienced adverse childhood experiences, trauma or chronic stress, which continue to shape their responses to school environments (Perry, 2006; Brunzell et al., 2016). While academic potential is often broadly in line with peers, access to learning has been compromised by difficulties with trust, regulation and perceived safety in educational contexts.
Staffing at the Springboard Project reflects a deliberately relational model. Classroom teams include teachers, support staff and trauma-informed practitioners, working collaboratively to support both learning and regulation. High levels of consistency, shared language and reflective practice are central features of the setting.
Theoretical and practice framework
Practice at the Springboard Project is underpinned by a social constructivist understanding of learning, drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1996). Social constructivism holds that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student but is actively built through shared activity and dialogue. In practice, this means that a student’s capacity to engage with learning is shaped not only by the task or instruction, but also by the quality of the relationship with the adult supporting them and the emotional conditions of the classroom. Emotional safety and relational trust are therefore viewed as foundational conditions for cognitive development.
Trauma-responsive practice is informed by neurodevelopmental research that demonstrates that chronic stress and trauma can significantly impair the brain systems responsible for attention, regulation and executive functioning (Perry, 2006). In line with this, the project adopts a regulation-first approach, recognising that students must be supported to feel safe and regulated before they are able to engage meaningfully with learning.
The work is also informed by Bath’s (2008) three pillars of trauma-informed care: safety, connection and emotional regulation. These pillars provide a coherent framework for translating trauma theory into classroom practice.
It is worth clarifying the terminology used in this article. Trauma-informed practice refers to an organisational awareness of the impact of trauma on learning and behaviour. Trauma-responsive practice describes the active adaptation of environments, relationships and pedagogy in light of that awareness. Trauma-embedded practice, towards which the Springboard Project is working, denotes the systemic integration of these principles across all aspects of a setting, so that they become inseparable from everyday classroom culture.
Classroom-based interventions and strategies
Creating regulating classroom environments
Research indicates that students affected by trauma are particularly sensitive to sensory stimuli and environmental unpredictability (Perry, 2006; Brunzell et al., 2016). In response, classrooms are organised to minimise sensory overload, with attention given to lighting, noise levels, visual clutter and seating arrangements.
Regulation resources such as movement options, sensory tools and calm breakout spaces are embedded within classrooms and framed as normal supports rather than exceptional measures. This aligns with Weare’s (2015) emphasis on whole-school approaches to wellbeing that reduce stigma and promote universal access to support.
Relational practice in daily teaching
Consistent with ethics of care perspectives, relationships are positioned as central to effective SEMH practice (Noddings, 2012). Staff prioritise predictable, attuned interactions, recognising that trust develops through consistency and emotional availability. Emotion coaching approaches are used to validate students’ feelings, while maintaining clear and compassionate boundaries. Key moments in the school day, such as arrivals, transitions and endings, are also treated as relational opportunities rather than logistical necessities.
Adaptive curriculum and in-class flexibility
Drawing on Universal Design for Learning principles, lessons are adapted to provide multiple pathways to engagement, representation and expression (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Adaptive curriculum plans allow learning to be paced according to students’ current capacity, while maintaining a clear trajectory towards qualification outcomes. Importantly, adaptations are embedded within classroom contexts wherever possible. This approach avoids the unintended exclusion that can arise when SEMH support is delivered primarily through withdrawal, and supports students to remain connected to learning communities (Cole et al., 2012).
Integrated support within the classroom
Trauma-informed practitioners work alongside teachers within classrooms, modelling co-regulation strategies and supporting de-escalation. This integrated approach reflects research suggesting that trauma-responsive practice is most effective when it is embedded within everyday interactions rather than delivered as a separate intervention (Bath, 2008; Brunzell et al., 2016).
Multi-agency insights, including family perspectives and external professional input, inform classroom planning and responses. This contributes to consistency and coherence in support, which is particularly important for students with histories of disrupted relationships.
Impact and outcomes
While the project continues to develop formal evaluative mechanisms, evidence gathered through attendance tracking, behaviour incident logs, staff reflective accounts and structured observations indicates a range of positive outcomes. Students demonstrate increased tolerance for classroom environments, improved attendance and greater engagement with learning over time. Incidents of escalation within lessons have reduced and students increasingly access regulation strategies independently.
Staff report increased confidence in supporting SEMH needs within classrooms, alongside reduced reliance on reactive or exclusionary responses. Shared language and frameworks have enhanced consistency across staff teams, supporting students who are particularly sensitive to unpredictability.
It should be acknowledged that much of this evidence is qualitative and drawn from professional observation rather than controlled measurement. The project is exploring the use of standardised wellbeing measures and more systematic tracking of engagement and regulation data to strengthen this evidence base over time.
These outcomes align with existing research suggesting that trauma-responsive, relational approaches can improve engagement, emotional regulation and wellbeing for vulnerable students (Brunzell et al., 2016; Weare, 2015).
Challenges and limitations
Embedding SEMH support within classroom practice presents ongoing challenges. High relational density (the intensive, sustained interpersonal engagement required when staff consistently attune to and co-regulate with students) and flexibility require sustained staffing and professional development, and can place pressure on resources. There is also a need for continual reflection to balance flexibility with structure, ensuring that support promotes engagement rather than avoidance.
Implications for practice
This case study reinforces the argument that SEMH needs are most effectively supported when classrooms themselves are designed as regulating, relational environments, and that trauma-responsive practice is compatible with academic ambition in this context. Both specialist and mainstream schools seeking to enhance SEMH provision may benefit from auditing classroom spaces, routines and pedagogical practices through the lens of safety, connection and regulation. While challenges remain, this case study contributes to a growing body of evidence that inclusive, relational classrooms are central to supporting SEMH students to engage, achieve and belong.
Read more from In Praxis: SEND and Inclusion
