So, If AAS Is So Good, Why Isn’t Everyone Doing It?

This chapter asks why attachment and trauma-informed approaches are not more widely implemented? It suggests that many of the published empirical studies are limited in terms of scope and methodology, which might be criticised as having a pseudo-scientific or positivist bias, which in turn undermines their wider credibility. It describes some of the more simplistic behaviourist objections to AAS, linking these with the ‘traditionalist’ ideologies of the earlier Black Papers and of contemporary Conservative politicians. It further considers neoliberal economic critiques suggesting a ‘trade-off’ between wellbeing and school attainment. Other scientific critiques are also examined, including McMahon and Etchells’ (Interdisciplinary bridging: A design-based approach to enhancing the learning sciences in Primary Initial Teacher Education. https://impact.chartered.college/author/kendra_mcmahon/ , 2018) argument for more critical approaches to neurobiology in education, and Woolgar and Simmonds’ (The diverse neurobiological processes and legacies of early adversity: Implications for practice. Adoption and Fostering, 43(3), 241–255, 2019) suggestion that over-simplified ‘scientific’ views of attachment can lead to misplaced diagnoses, which fail to take into account individuals’ wider social and economic context. The chapter points up inconsistencies within social care and psychotherapy, between those who take a social or universal approach and those who emphasise individual therapy. It also considers challenges from postmodernist writers who suggest that all change is illusory, arguing from a Freirean perspective, as in the previous chapter, that teachers’ classroom experience of the contradictions of neoliberal policy can lead to consciously transformative approaches.