The Failure of Productive Struggle: How Special Populations Are Left Behind
In recent years, the concept of productive struggle, or productive failure, has gained significant traction within educational circles. The idea is simple, they say: by encouraging students to grapple with challenges and work through difficulties, they develop problem-solving skills and resilience. Many districts have embraced this pedagogy, often insisting that it be implemented with strict fidelity. However, this approach overlooks the diverse needs of students, particularly those who fall outside the standardised mould. Students with Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs), English Learners (ELLs), and those impacted by trauma are frequently left behind by such one-size-fits-all strategies. These students require more tailored support and scaffolding, which are often incompatible with the deliberate withholding of assistance inherent in productive struggle. The very nature of this pedagogy assumes a level playing field, but for these populations, the emotional and cognitive demands of productive failure can exacerbate their struggles. Today’s article will critique the limitations of such pedagogies, particularly in the context of trauma-informed teaching, where the focus should be on healing and supporting, rather than intensifying, student distress.
The Pedagogy of Productive Struggle
Productive struggle, often referred to as productive failure, is a pedagogical approach that encourages students to persist through challenges without immediate intervention. The goal, supporters say, is to help learners develop deeper problem-solving abilities, resilience, and critical thinking skills. In theory, by working through their own mistakes, students are supposed to emerge with a more profound understanding of the material. This method has gained widespread popularity among educators and policymakers alike, especially as it aligns with the push for fostering ‘grit’ and ‘growth mindsets’ in students. Advocates argue that the process of struggle is essential for learning and builds long-term academic resilience.
However, this approach rests on the assumption that all students are equally positioned to benefit from such methods, which is a fundamentally ableist view. It assumes that all students, regardless of their individual needs, can access the same cognitive and emotional resources to engage in productive struggle. For students with IEPs, ELLs, and/or those affected by trauma, this assumption is not only misguided but harmful. These students often require differentiated instruction, additional supports, and emotional scaffolding that this approach deliberately withholds. By ignoring the diverse learning profiles and emotional landscapes of these students, productive struggle can easily turn into counterproductive distress, widening the gap between them and their peers.
Omission of ‘Special Populations’
Despite the growing influence of productive struggle in educational discourse, students with IEPs and ELLs are conspicuously absent from many of these frameworks. As an recent example, neither this article promoting this pedagogy, nor the journal paper it references, mentions these vulnerable populations. This omission is not unique to this instance but part of a larger trend where educational policies and practices that favour corporate-backed pedagogies are elevated whilst the needs of millions of students—those who require specialised support—are overlooked. In a system increasingly driven by data and outcomes, these approaches often align with broader corporate interests, reinforcing a one-size-fits-all model that marginalises students who do not fit the normative mould.
For students with learning disabilities and language barriers, productive struggle is particularly problematic. These students often thrive with explicit instruction, scaffolding, and language supports—none of which are integral to the struggle-based approach. The concept assumes that all students can independently navigate through difficulties to arrive at understanding, an expectation that is unrealistic and unfair for those who depend on tailored instruction. English Learners, in particular, may lack the linguistic foundation to engage meaningfully with the tasks they are set to ‘struggle’ through, whilst students with IEPs may face cognitive barriers that render the struggle not just unproductive but actively damaging to their confidence and motivation. Without proper accommodations, productive struggle is not merely ineffective for these populations—it risks setting them back even further. This omission speaks volumes about how disconnected such pedagogies are from the lived realities of millions of students who require more than just resilience to succeed.
Impact on Trauma-Impacted Students
The conflict between productive struggle and trauma-informed education is stark, particularly in Title 1 settings, where trauma is a prevalent feature of the student experience. Millions of students in the US attend Title 1 schools, many of whom carry the weight of trauma into their daily educational lives. For these students, the expectation to engage in productive failure is not only unrealistic but potentially harmful. Trauma-impacted students often live with heightened stress and emotional dysregulation, making the cognitive demands of productive struggle overwhelming. Rather than fostering resilience, the expectation that students will independently navigate through frustration and failure can exacerbate their stress, triggering anxiety or emotional withdrawal.
For students dealing with trauma, the emotional landscape of learning is fraught with challenges. The very nature of productive struggle—being cognitively demanding and emotionally taxing—runs counter to the principles of trauma-informed teaching, which prioritises safety, stability, and emotional regulation. Without the proper supports, these students are at risk of disengagement or shutdown. As an autistic gestalt processor, I can personally attest to how such emotionally charged learning situations can trigger anticipatory anxiety and even meltdowns, which I still experience in some professional development settings (yes, educators are affected by trauma as well as students). For trauma-impacted students, these feelings are not only frustrating but can hinder their ability to engage with learning at all. By ignoring the emotional and cognitive realities of trauma, productive struggle only deepens the divide for students who need more than grit to succeed.
Teacher Training Deficits: Lack of Trauma-Informed Support
Teachers are frequently expected to implement complex pedagogical strategies, like productive struggle, with little to no preparation for navigating the emotional complexities that accompany trauma-informed education. Whilst districts like mine relentlessly push for pedagogical fidelity, they consistently fail to provide teachers with adequate training in trauma-informed practices or emotional support resources for their students. Teachers are left to manage not only the academic demands of their students but also the deep-seated emotional issues many students bring to the classroom. This creates an impossible situation, where teachers are expected to foster student resilience through strategies they themselves have not been fully equipped to deliver.
The emphasis on fidelity in abstract pedagogies often overlooks the human element that is central to teaching, particularly when working with trauma-impacted students and teachers. Teachers are not only held to account for student growth but are also expected to manage trauma, learning disabilities, and language barriers with minimal guidance. The lack of trauma-informed training means that neither students nor teachers ever truly master the content, as the ‘pedagogical flavour of the week’ shifts before either group can effectively internalise it. In the end, the growth of both students and teachers is stunted, leaving classrooms in a perpetual cycle of educational trial and error without meaningful progress or support.
SRSD as a Trauma-Informed Alternative
Self-Regulation Strategy Development (SRSD) presents a more suitable framework for trauma-impacted students compared to the rigid structures of productive struggle. SRSD centres on both cognitive and emotional regulation, recognising that learning is not just about mastering academic content but also managing the emotional landscape that comes with it. By explicitly teaching students strategies to regulate their own emotions and thought processes, SRSD works in tandem with their emotional needs, rather than placing the unrealistic expectation of independent struggle on them.
This approach has been a central part of my own teaching practice in my Learning Centre, which serves as a pull-out from general education for students needing more specialised support. SRSD not only allows students to engage with the material in a more structured, supportive way but has also led to significant growth in both their academic and emotional development. It acknowledges the reality of trauma in education and offers a balanced, compassionate method for genuine learning that accounts for the full range of student needs.
The Disconnect Between Policy and Classroom Realities
There is a glaring disconnect between policy directives, such as the emphasis on fidelity of pedagogy, and the day-to-day realities faced in classrooms, particularly for students with diverse needs. Districts and policymakers often seem fixated on improving student scores and demonstrating measurable growth, without considering the complexity of the learning environment, especially for students from special populations. The pressure on teachers to implement rigid pedagogies without adaptation creates an environment where these special populations are left behind.
This gap is exacerbated by the fact that many administrators and policymakers making these curricular decisions are years, if not decades, removed from the realities of the classroom. Their distance from daily interactions with students and families leaves them disconnected from the challenges teachers face when managing diverse learning needs. The insistence on fidelity to a specific pedagogy, without room for flexibility, ignores the necessity of adjusting instruction to fit the unique profiles of students. It reflects a top-down approach where policy ignores the human element of education, favouring uniformity over adaptability. The result is a failure to serve those who need tailored support the most, perpetuating inequities and hindering true progress in the classroom.
Final thoughts …
To wrap up today’s article, the widespread adoption of productive struggle as a pedagogical approach fails to account for the diverse needs of students. The notion that this method can universally benefit all learners is deeply flawed and ultimately harmful to special populations. These students require more explicit instruction, scaffolding, and emotional support, rather than being left to “struggle” without proper accommodations.
What is needed are flexible, trauma-informed frameworks, like SRSD, that address both cognitive and emotional aspects of learning, ensuring that every student, regardless of background, has the support necessary to succeed. Districts must prioritise these approaches and invest in comprehensive teacher training that equips educators to meet the complex emotional needs of their students. Only by adopting such inclusive methods can we create classroom environments where all students are empowered to thrive, not just those who fit neatly within traditional pedagogical models.