The British Psychological Society

 

 

Submission to the House of Commons Select Committee

Special Educational Needs Inquiry

 

The British Psychological Society welcomes the opportunity to submit information to the Committee's inquiry into Special Education Needs. The British Psychological Society is the learned and professional body, incorporated by Royal Charter, for psychologists in the United Kingdom. The Society has a total membership of over 42,000 and is a registered charity.

 

The key Charter object of the Society is "to promote the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of psychology pure and applied and especially to promote the efficiency and usefulness of members by setting up a high standard of professional education and knowledge".

 

The Society is authorised under its Royal Charter to maintain the Register of Chartered Psychologists. It has a code of conduct and investigatory and disciplinary systems in place to consider complaints of professional misconduct relating to its members. The Society is an examining body granting certificates and diplomas in specialist areas of professional applied psychology. It also has in place quality assurance programmes for accrediting both undergraduate and postgraduate university degree courses.

 

 

1.1 This submission is based upon evidence provided by the Division of Educational and Child Psychology (DECP). Educational and child psychologists work with children from 0-19 across all areas of disability. They are concerned with the application of psychological research and theory to the enhancement of children's learning, psychological well-being and development. They have skills in psychological and educational assessment, intervention techniques and methods for helping children and young people who are experiencing difficulties in learning or social adjustment.

 

1.2 Educational psychologists collaborate with other key professionals in the early identification of difficulties a child or young person may be experiencing and through psychological assessment and intervention. In particular, Educational Psychologists work closely with other colleagues in education (for example educational welfare officers and behaviour support and pupil development staff), as well as other professionals in agencies like social services and the health service.

 

1.3 Educational psychologists have a central role in Special Educational Needs (SEN) where they have considerable statutory duties. Uniquely, educational psychologists are trained and have responsibilities and involvement in every phase of education, including early years work, thus allowing them to see the long-term impact of government decisions relating to SEN. Educational psychologists also inform social and educational policy within local authorities in relation to SEN, children's well-being, learning and development and centre their work around multi-agency assessments and interventions.

 

1.4 Therefore, the range and scope of their work covers all five areas of 'Every Child Matters'. The transformation of SEN within the context of Children's Services and the changing educational landscape means that their professional knowledge base is founded upon day-to-day practices, a clearly articulated working knowledge of psychological theory and research, and a strategic perspective which illuminates both strengths and weakness of the past and current policies and practices relating to SEN.

 

 

Provision for SEN pupils in 'mainstream': availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision.

2.1 Today, most pupils with SEN are educated in mainstream schools. However, their experience of mainstream education and the nature and level of support that they receive, will vary from region to region. Concerns have been raised that a system of delegation of funding for support services has lead to insecure and inequitable provision for some pupils with SEN (Ofsted, 2005). In the context of the government's Five Year Strategy for Education and Learners (DfES, 2004a), which advocates the development of more school-based resourcing and a greater diversity of providers, there is a continuing need for maintenance of a central local authority services (such as Educational Psychology Services) to promote and support the needs of individual children, their families and schools. The increasingly influential market forces and the standards' agenda has led to some children and their families having difficulty accessing services which should be there for all children and 'free at the point of delivery'.

2.2 There is a need to consider in detail the critical relationship between a 'market orientated educational landscape' and the distribution of scarce additional resources via an equitable system based on 'need' which maintains equality of opportunity and outcome for vulnerable children. The current system of funding needs to be reviewed and new arrangements that are stable, consistent and facilitate longer-term planning should be introduced.

 

Provision for SEN pupils in Special Schools.

3.1 Special schools have a distinctive and developing role within the present-day education system and we support an increasing emphasis on the sharing of specialist pedagogy and the flexible use of dual placements. The roles of mainstream and special schools need to overlap in legislation, as all children can benefit from sharing experiences with children on a continuum of need, as they grow and take their places in society as young adults. The British Ppsychological Society welcomes publication of 'The Report of the Special Schools Working Group' (2003) which calls for greater collaboration between mainstream and special schools in developing innovative practices.

 

Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils.

4.1 A skilled and motivated children's workforce is of central importance in raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils. Implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda (ECM, 2003, pp. 83-96) raises particular challenges and contains considerable training implications for a range of staff who need to develop a common core set of skills and knowledge (DfES, 2005a). The profession of educational psychology has held a central position in this area and has been heavily involved in multi-agency working on behalf of children and families from all age groups and in every type of educational setting, including private, independent schools for children with SEN. Advising on high quality teaching for children with SEN has been a central strand to the work of educational psychologists for nearly fifty years (c.f. the Summerfield Report, 1968) as has research, and the provision of evidence of effective practice through reports, consultation and training (DfEE, 2000, p. 20-21).

4.2 The case has already been made for local authorities to improve the evaluation of the impact of their work on pupil progress. The rigorous implementation of evidence-based practice could deliver significant improvements to the effectiveness of provision across mainstream and special schools. This would involve well-monitored evidence-supported interventions, systematically delivered by appropriately trained staff and evaluated for their effectiveness with individual children.

4.3 There is a clear need for the workloads and responsibilities of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and specialist teachers to be re-structured so that time can be released from bureaucratic activities to allow more hands-on involvement in training, monitoring and supporting to ensure high fidelity in evidence-based programme delivery. It is essential that the children with the most complex needs are provided with the most effective provision. In many instances, provision is less than satisfactory, but there are few mechanisms which allow for effective monitoring, accountability and challenge. Often, there are low expectations for a child with special educational needs, and this leads to a position that minimal progress is acceptable.

4.4 Poor monitoring of the outcomes of inclusion was identified in the Ofsted (2004) survey to examine the impact of the government's inclusion framework. Here it was reported that few schools evaluate provision for SEN systematically so that they can establish how effective it is and whether it represents value for money. Ofsted (2002) had recommended that improvement should be measured in three areas: educational attainment, gains in self-esteem, and improved relationships between pupils with SEN and their peers. Recent developments, particularly work using the p-scales and the establishment of the National Performance Framework for SEN (DfES, 2004b), appears to provide the means for resolving many issues regarding the monitoring and evaluation of academic outcomes of inclusion.

4.5 However, we would also want to highlight the fact that excellent inclusive practice exists in a small proportion of schools proving that effective provision can be made (e.g. the inclusion of children with Down syndrome in mainstream primary and secondary schools). However, perhaps the most difficult barrier to overcome in supporting children with SEN is found within the attitudes, values and personal beliefs of people. It will be essential that this factor is fully understood by the committee because the prevailing culture will determine, not only the outcomes of the review, but how the new regulations will be put into practice by schools.

4.6 To raise standards of achievement for pupils who have special educational needs, there is a need for consistent implementation of well-planned, appropriately differentiated curricula and individualized programmes of support, recommended by educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and specialist teachers from local authority teams or special school outreach teams. Currently, support for the most vulnerable pupils is usually provided by teaching assistants who often receive insufficient training, monitoring and support. Furthermore, there has been a trend towards brief, superficial training in SEN interventions which are not based on research or compelling evidence, and which are not rigorously evaluated. Highly trained and properly qualified professionals need to support school staff in their continuing professional development. In addition, there needs to be a clear and rigorous evaluation of both the quality of the training and its impact on children's progress.

 

The system of statements of need for SEN pupils ('the statementing process').

5.1 Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the equitability and cost effectiveness of the current system. Educational psychologists are in a good position to comment on these issues as they are centrally concerned with supporting individual children, their families and communities and building school capacity in this area.

5.4 The principles underpinning the so-called 'statementing' process, (a word which is, itself, indicative of how corrupted the 'formal assessment' procedure has become) were initially focussed on the 'needs' of children. Over time, however, the process has led to an education system where mainstream schools have become increasingly dependent on the local authority in meeting the special educational needs of children and young people. Paradoxically, schools and parents can spend a great deal of time pursuing a small amount of money via a Statement of SEN. The notional '2%' of children with severe and complex special needs referred to in the Warnock Report, (1978) has grown over the years and in some LEAs as many as 5% of pupils have Statements of Special Educational Need. As a consequence, the administrative responsibilities resulting from the formal assessment procedures have had a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of all professional groups involved in the statutory assessment process. In the case of educational psychologists, professional practice has been restricted and efforts diverted from more constructive activities such as proactive work, intervention planning and delivery, evaluation and inservice training, especially for teachers and teaching assistants.

5.3 The unintended and perverse incentive for mainstream schools to expend time seeking money from the local authority also perpetuates an unquestioning dependence on the Statement of Sspecial Educational Needs. Once a child is provided with additional funding via a Statement, there is no incentive to remove this status, since to do so would be to lose funding or 'have to make redundant' the person employed to support the Statement. Thus, children retain a Statement for their whole educational career. Decisions to maintain a Statement of SEN can be predicated on the idea that the child would fail without the Statement, without there being any clear supporting evidence that this is the case. Other arguments for maintaining a Statement of SEN relate to unchallenged fears that transition to full time education / a secondary school would lead to deterioration in the child's functioning.

5.4 A Statement of SEN can, itself, become a barrier to inclusion. As young children progress from early years settings to full-time education school staff can sometimes become reluctant to accept the children due to their significant special needs label. The British Psychology Society welcomed legislation which has clarified the legal of position of children with SEN (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001):

"...makes it unlawful for an education authority ... to discriminate against a disabled pupil or a prospective disabled pupil in the discharge of its functions" (Code of Practice for Schools: Disability Discrimination Act 1995, part 4, p. 95).

 

The role of parents in decisions about their children's education.

6.1 There is a well documented relationship between parental involvement in education and positive learning outcomes (Griffith, 1996; Sammons et al., 1995). Parent-teacher partnerships are important in establishing consistent and co-operative arrangements for supporting children's learning, and developing and maintaining home-school trust is crucial (Dunsmuir, Frederickson & Lang, 2004). Parents with confidence to manoeuvre within the complex system are a strong force in securing resources. In addition to involving parents in decisions about their children's education (c.f. SEN, Code of Practice, 2001, pp.16-26), the British Psychological Society welcomes the widening role of Parent Partnership Services to embrace wider issues with respect to parents establishing sound relationships with schools.

6.2 Parents' pivotal role in their child's education needs to be further developed, and in those cases where parents themselves may have Special Needs, additional support should be readily available to ensure that their needs, in relation to their child's needs, are met. The Society would like to see schools further developing their links with parents through the extended schools agenda and by providing opportunities for parents and children to learn together (Camilleri, Spiteri & Wolfendale, 2005).

 

6.3 A small but vociferous groups of parents, often aligned with independent organisations and pressure groups can lead to serious bias in the allocation of very limited resources, especially prevalent in the areas of 'dyslexia' and 'autism' (Gross, 1996). In some cases, parents have striven for particular placements or interventions believing that they represent 'cures' to the real problems which their child may have and seek full financial assistance (e.g. £200,000 per annum) to support their child, usually in private, independent schools which are often a significant distance from their families and communities. This adversarial stance has sometimes culminated in acrimony and distress for parents who enter into an uncompromising dispute with local authorities. Unfortunately, and despite the considerable amounts of money involved, little time or attention is given to following the progress of the children at the centre of the dispute once the resources are allocated.

 

6.4 Therefore, current government legislation, regulations and policies can lead to an adversarial position between parents and professionals that is not necessarily in the best interests of the child. A more informed approach is needed and the development of a more collaborative system would be welcomed. To this end the Society welcomes the widening role of Parent Partnership Services and advocates the need for the development of a rigorous, longitudinal research base to support placement decisions.

 

How are special educational needs are defined?

7.1 The continuing move away from labelling children according to 'categories' of need based on perceived child deficits is to be welcomed as an approach based on categories can have an adverse impact on the development of a child's self-identity and, as a result, restrict efforts to teach them effectively. Thus, we would recommend a focus on 'needs' and 'appropriate provision'.

7.2 The development of 'personalised learning programmes' for all children is to be welcomed, and the direction outlined in 'Removing Barriers to Achievement' (2004b) should be pursued, i.e. that children with additional needs are at the core of personalised education. Models of SEN which focus on intervention, curriculum and social causes of school difficulties rather than within-child deficits are welcomed because school staff can be supported to take effective action to remove barriers to learning.

7.3 The Society can see value in a national framework for funding schools to a level which would ensure that any child would be able to follow a personalised programme within a school within their community. This may mean schools working collaboratively to meet the needs of children within their community.

7.5 Within a national framework for funding, children would be continually assessed through intervention and appropriate 'adjustments' would be made, in accordance with the Disability Rights Commission. Best practice would be shared within a research orientated framework leading to increasingly effective and evaluated provision.

7.6 The Society would wish to emphasise that assessment should be collaborative and conducted over time (DECP, 1999). The assessment process, under the Every Child Matters agenda should be multi-agency and start a birth. Thus, a child with needs that require a personalised plan would be fully assessed before attending full-time education. Where it becomes clear that a child's needs are not being met, further assessment should take place. Thus, there must be assessment procedures in place for very young children, and facilities which enable a rapid intervention-assessment if it becomes clear that a child is not being adequately supported in some way. The overall aim should be to identify the appropriate provision to meet the child's identified needs.

 

Provision for different types and levels of SEN, including emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD).

8.1 Many types and causes of SEN can be identified early and the importance of early identification and intensive support in the early years is well documented. This is particularly true for children with EBSD. Learning and psychological theory offers considerable potential for developing specific interventions for groups of disadvantaged children (Webster- Stratton et al., 2001). For a review of the accumulating evidence that parent training programmes can be effectively applied to a wide range of behaviour problems in a variety of different settings, see Fonaghy and Kurtz, (2002).

8.2 An example of one intensive but non-stigmatising early intervention for EBSD that is increasingly being implemented across the UK, are Classic Boxall Nurture Groups. These groups were first established by an educational psychologist in Hackney in the 1970s. Currently, research into their effectiveness is being gathered by Prof. Paul Cooper at Leicester University.

8.3 Systematic evaluation of children's emotional and social development, especially those with SEN and mental health problems, is sparse. Yet there have been recent concerns expressed by Baroness Warnock about some pupils' experience of inclusion (Warnock, 2005) where many pupils who have special needs are considered likely to be 'bullied and teased, or at least simply neglected' in mainstream schools. Indeed, some of our members have reported that parents have been known to seek placement in special schools as a means of protecting their child from 'bullying and intimidation'.

8.4 Research studies that have investigated social and emotional outcomes of educating pupils who have special educational needs in mainstream schools have produced equivocal results. The overall picture tends to show poorer outcomes for pupils who have SEN compared with those of their mainstream peers unless particular efforts are made to address and improve them. Research on acceptance and rejection of pupils with SEN, assessed by peer reports of willingness to associate in work and social contexts in school, and has consistently reported that higher proportions of included children have lower social status, being less accepted and more rejected than their mainstream classmates. These findings have emerged across different national school systems, including the UK (Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993; Frederickson & Furnham, 2004; Dyson, Farrell, Polat, & Hutchenson, 2004). The research literature also reveals higher levels of bullying and victimization of pupils with SEN than of their mainstream peers. This is the case whether bullying is assessed through pupil self report, peer report or teacher report (De Monchy, Pijl, & Zandberg, 2004; Nabuzoka, & Smith, 1993; Thompson, Whitney, & Smith, 1994). Educational psychologists have research training that enables them to play a key role in bringing scientific rigour to the design and evaluation of interventions.

8.5 With regard to provision designed to support children's emotional, social and behavioural development, assessment needs to be collaborative, detailed and based on 'needs' and not categorisation or labelling, as this can have a stigmatising and self-fulfilling prophecy effect. Care needs to taken in assessing the effects of poverty and in differentiating between the emotional and social development of children. The British Psychological Society would recommmend that in the assessment of emotional, social and behavioural needs, a collaborative framework is used. This should focuses on the child's natural environment(s) and the complexity of interactions within the child's life. Links with community CAMHS and other community organisations should be evident in these assessments. Early intervention is essential in order to prevent a habitual patterns of anti-social behaviour become embedded as part of a child's life. Educational Psychologists play a vital role in 'differentiating' the nature of a child or young person's ESBD and have a major role to play in identifying those young people who might be experiencing significant mental health difficulties and who require referral to CAMHS. The Children's Services and Trust agenda are providing significant opportunities for professionals to address issues of 'integrated referral pathways' and 'common assessment frameworks'. The British Psychological Society welcomes these advances in professional practice.

8.6 The British Psychological Society is especially supportive of the Primary and Secondary strategies which support the development of children's social and emotional aspects of learning (DfES, 2005b). We would hope that resources are provided to ensure that these strategies can be further developed and extended to the prevention of exclusions where children are sent home and end up spending increased amounts of time thereafter on the streets. The Society would endorse the practice of schools working in collaborative networks to share expertise in significantly reducing exclusion and disaffection from school for those children deemed to have additional educational needs.

8.7 Psychologists have documented successful interventions working at the institutional, the classroom and the individual pupil levels, with teachers and with pupils and parents. Such interventions draw from a wide range of psychological perspectives, some taking a preventative and some a reactive stance, and address both pragmatic strategies and the intense emotions that often surround serious behaviour difficulties. Research has revealed conflicting beliefs among teachers, pupils and parents about important aspects of behaviour in schools, with this clash having the potential to further exacerbate home-school tensions. Published accounts document psychologists' involvement in successful mediation between teachers and parents and in devising joint strategies that have produced significant improvements with KS1 & 2 pupils originally judged by their teachers as the most difficult they had encountered. For further information see the British Psychological Society submission to the Ministerial Stakeholders Group on Pupil Behaviour and Discipline (copy attached).

 

 

The legislative framework for SEN provision and the effects of the Disability Act 2001, which extended the Disability Discrimination Act to education.

9.1 Many of the legislative changes that have the biggest impact on the lives and educational experiences of children with SEN do not come from SEN policy but more general educational initiatives e.g. on school admissions, exclusions, funding systems. There is a need for policy makers to consider the broader picture and the effect of unintended incentives/disincentives in the system that can lead to and sustain detrimental educational experiences.

 

This response was prepared on behalf of The British Psychological Society by Dr Sandra Dunsmuir, Dr Norah Fredrickson, and Kath Fingleton.

 

October 2005

 

 

References

 

British Psychological Society Division of Educational and Child Psychology (DECP) (1999) A framework for psychological assessment and intervention. Division of Educational and Child Psychology Newsletter, 89, 6-12.

 

Camilleri, J., Spiteri, S & Wolfendale, S. (2005). Parent empowerment for family literacy: a European initiative. Literacy, 39(2), 79.

De Monchy, M., Pijl, S., & Zandberg, T. (2004). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19 (3), 317-330

 

Department for Education and Skills (2001). Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs. Statutory Guidance. London: DfES Publications.

 

Department for Education and Skills (2004a). Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. London: DfES Publications.

 

Department for Education and Skills (2004b). Removing Barriers to Achievement, The Government's Strategy for SEN. London: DfES Publications.

 

Department for Education and Skills (2005a). Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children's Workforce. London: DfES Publications.

 

Department for Education and Skills (2005b). Excellence and Eenjoyment: Social and Emotional Aaspects of lLearning (SEAL). London: DfES Publications.

 

Dunsmuir, S, Frederickson, N. & Lang, J. (2004). Building home-school trust. Educational and Child Psychology, 21 (4), 110-128.

 

Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., & Hutcheson, G. (2004). Inclusion and Pupil Achievement. Research Report RR578. London: DfES Publications.

 

Fonagy, P. and Kurtz, A. (2002) Disturbance of conduct. In; P. Fonagy et al. (eds.) What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Treatments for Children and Adolescents. NY: Guilford.

 

Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004) The relationship between sociometric status and peer assessed behavioural characteristics of included pupils who have moderate learning difficulties and their classroom peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (3), 391-410.

 

Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental involvement, empowerment and schools traits to student academic performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 91 (1), 33-41

 

Gross, J. (1996) The weight of the evidence: Parental advocacy and resource

allocation to children with statements of special educational need. Support for Learning. Vol.11 No.1 (1996)

 

Nabuzoka, D. & Smith, P.K. (1993). Sociometric status and social behaviour of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34 (8), 1435-1448.

 

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (2002). LEA Strategy for the Inclusion of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: Ofsted.

 

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (2004). Special Educational Needs and Disability. Towards Inclusive Schools. London: Ofsted.

 

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) (2005). Inclusion: The Impact of LEA Support and Outreach Services. London: Ofsted

 

Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of Effective Schools. A review of School Effectiveness Research. A report by the Institute of Education for the Office for Standards in Education.

 

Thompson, D., Whitney, I., & Smith, P. (1994). Bullying of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 9 (3), 103-106.

 

Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A New Outlook. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

 

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M.J. & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing Conduct Problems, Promoting Social Competence: A Parent and Teacher Training Partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30 (3), 283-302.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Psychological Society Submission to the Ministerial Stakeholders' Group on Pupil Behaviour and Discipline

 

The British Psychological Society is the learned and professional body, incorporated by Royal Charter, for psychologists in the United Kingdom. A briefing note on the role and remit of the Society is attached for your reference.

 

The Society welcomes the creation of The Leadership Group on Behaviour and Discipline and we look forward to the publication of the report in October 2005.

The Society represents a wide range of expertise in the field of education and behaviour, both at academic level and on the ground via the Educational Psychologists' community currently advising schools and Local Education Authorities. As such, we welcome the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. This submission has been approved by the Society's Research Board and is based upon contributions from the following members of the Society with specific expertise in the area of pupil behaviour and discipline:

 

Professor Andy Miller (Nottingham)

Professor Sue Hallam (Institute of Education)

Professor Pam Maras (Greenwich)

Dr Patrick Leman (Royal Holloway)

 

Executive Summary:

 

· As a scientific discipline, psychology is well-placed to provide an evidence-base for understanding and intervening effectively in this pressing and contentious area.

· Educational Psychology Services work closely with other agencies at individual, organisational and policy levels.

· Applied psychologists have a key role in bringing scientific rigour to the design and evaluation of interventions.

· Research has shown that pupils with behavioural problems are not a homogenous group and that such students can be typified within at least eight different categories.

· The disciplinary climate of schools is an important factor and research has identified four differing types.

· Applied psychologists have documented successful interventions working at the institutional, the classroom and the individual pupil levels, with teachers and with pupils and parents.

· Such interventions draw from a wide range of psychological perspectives, some taking a preventative and some a reactive stance, and address both pragmatic strategies and the intense emotions that often surround serious behaviour difficulties.

· Research has revealed conflicting beliefs among teachers, pupils and parents about important aspects of behaviour in schools, with this clash having the potential to further exacerbate home-school tensions.

· Published accounts document psychologists' involvement in successful mediation between teachers and parents and in devising joint strategies that have produced significant improvements with KS1 & 2 pupils originally judged by their teachers as the most difficult they had encountered.

 

Introduction:

 

A significant body of research has highlighted problematic behaviour as a major source of discontent among teachers, which creates difficulties for teaching and learning in some schools (MacBeath et al., 2004). Psychology makes a central contribution to the subject of Pupil Behaviour and Discipline. This takes the form of both empirical research and of the systematic collation of the professional experience of practitioners such as educational psychologists and clinical child psychologists. Evidence from psychology can help our understanding of some pupils' difficulties. Psychologists have had a key role in designing and evaluating effective strategies for improving pupil behaviour and learning at both the individual and school level and more widely in relation to policy implications. The British Psychological Society has been active in linking scientific evidence in relation to different types of behaviour difficulties and guidelines for practice (e.g. British Psychological Society, 1998; 2000). As a scientific discipline, psychology is well-placed to provide an evidence base for understanding and intervening effectively in this pressing and contentious area.

 

Levels of Analysis:

 

It is productive to consider the contribution of psychology to different levels of analysis of the 'behaviour issue', namely:

 

· Legislation

· LEA/LA policy (including the continuum of provision)

· School policy

· Teachers' classroom management skills

· Strategies for managing the particularly difficult behaviour of certain individual students

 

Distinguishing between school level processes and the exceptional needs of certain individual students

 

Improving behaviour in school depends on addressing a range of inter-related issues at the whole-school level, in the classroom and in relation to individual pupils. Work at all these levels can have an impact (Gottredson et al., 1993).

 

A distinction is commonly made between the extent to which orderly behaviour can be brought about by effective school policies and classroom management skills and the size of that proportion of students who require specialist and individualised interventions. Psychological research and practice has contributed to each of these areas. In addition, research in (primary) schools has shown that even students judged by their teachers to be most extreme in their behaviour can be 'brought around' by effective interventions devised between teachers and educational psychologists (Miller, 2003).

 

Whilst the distinction between school level and individual interventions is conceptually useful, research and practice in psychology has shown that effective school level processes can positively influence some students judged extremely difficult to manage (Miller, 2003). Conversely, some detailed individual management strategies, with their roots in psychological research, have been shown to have wider implications for more general practice within schools (Maras, 2001).

 

An important issue concerns the perception of students with behavioural problems as a homogenous group. This is not the case; such students can be typified under at least eight headings, including: delinquency, emotional difficulties, behavioural difficulties, emotional and behavioural difficulties, social problems, challenging behaviour associated with learning difficulties, and mental health problems (Maras, 2001). Individual students rarely fall under one category and they therefore require different and targeted interventions.

 

In terms of these interventions with individual students, a large and convincing evidence-base demonstrates the effectiveness of approaches based on Applied Behavioural Analysis (LaVigna & Willis, 1995), Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (Graham, 2004) and Solution Focused Brief Therapy (Rhodes & Ajmal, 1995, Young & Holdrof, 2003).

 

 

Pupil behaviour - the emotional component

 

The rational and strategic nature of school policies, the need for classroom management skills and individually-targeted interventions and issues of difficult behaviour can all generate intense emotional reactions, for staff and parents as well the pupils. Psychologists have consequently been instrumental in developing group consultation workshops with teachers to help manage deleterious and demoralising emotional responses (Hanko, 1999; Stringer et al., 1992). Published evaluations have attested to the value that teachers place upon such approaches (Bozic & Carter, 2002).

 

Similarly, research has demonstrated that peer group approaches with students can bring about improvements in difficult behaviour in schools. Published accounts include research into work on peer mediation around bullying (Smith, 1999), 'Circles of Friends' interventions (Newton et al., 1995, Frederickson & Turner, 2003), social skills training (Maddern et al., 2004), peer tutoring and mentoring (Maras, 2001; Maras et al., 2000) and moral reasoning (Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Leman, 2001).

 

Gender differences in levels and types of bullying (Smith, 1999) and aggression (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) indicate a potential role for psychological and social factors as mediators of reasoning and subsequent behaviour. For instance, research has shown that commonly reported sex differences in the prevalence and type of behaviour difficulties manifested by pupils may be related to teachers' expectations and understanding (Maras & Cooper, 1999). For example, research findings suggest that, teachers and other professionals' perceptions of the level of young men's emotional difficulties are significantly lower than their estimations of young women's when compared to perceptions of behavioural difficulties.

 

 

Intervention at the institutional level - formal and informal processes

 

In addition to individual and group interventions for both teachers and students, as above, the discipline of psychology has also made important contributions to work with schools at the institutional level and in relation to muli-agency working (BPS, 2000).

 

Occupational and educational psychologists have harnessed systematic and proven approaches such as Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland & Scholes, 1990, Frederickson, 1990) towards the development of policy in schools around behaviour (Miller, 2003). This particular intervention targets not only the development of formally stated policies and procedures but also the 'cultural' aspects of schools that are crucial for their conscientious and enthusiastic implementation.

 

A key factor relates to the disciplinary climates of schools. Research has identified four: controlled (low misbehaviour, severe punishment); conflictual (high misbehaviour, severe punishment); libertarian (high misbehaviour, light punishment); and autonomous (low misbehaviour, light punishment) (Cohen & Thomas, 1984).

 

Well-disciplined schools create a whole-school environment that is conducive to good discipline rather than reacting to particular incidents. Teachers view the school as a place where they and pupils work together for success. There is collaboration and co-operation at the whole school level, the school is student oriented and focuses on the causes of indiscipline rather than the symptoms. Prevention rather than punishment is central. Head teachers play a key role in developing policies and practices alongside other key members of staff and teachers as a whole are committed to the students and their work. Most routine discipline problems are dealt with by teachers themselves and there are strong links with parents and community agencies (Wayson et al., 1982). Schools differ in their degree of community, collegial relations being central to this, coupled with a role for teachers which frequently brings them into contact with other staff and students outside of the classroom. Schools with high levels of communal organisation show more orderly behaviour (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988).

 

The attitudes of staff, particularly the senior management team and the head teacher seem to be the most important factors in explaining the different rates of exclusions between similar schools (Maras et al., in press). Where staff in schools believe that they do not have the power to address issues of poor behaviour there is a tendency for higher rates of exclusion (Maxwell, 1987). However, it is important to note that excluding students from school is often not seen as punitive (but reward) by some students with behavioural difficulties.

 

Roles and responsibilities of staff in schools are important. Secondary schools with low levels of disruptive behaviour have pastoral care systems which see their aim as enhancing educational progress. Teachers do not pass problems on to senior staff, tutors are the core of pastoral care, pastoral care for teachers is in evidence and the school climate promotes discussion of disruptive behaviour without recrimination (Galloway, 1983).

 

In the UK, there have been documented positive outcomes from the adoption of multi-disciplinary teams within schools, and on-site learning support (Hallam & Castle, 1999a; 2001) and the employment of home-school links workers (Hallam & Castle, 1999b; Castle & Hallam, 2002).

 

Behaviour audits, introduced as part of the Behavioural Improvement Programme, have enabled schools to identify where there are particular difficulties. These enable schools to explore issues relating to school climate, behaviour policies and practices, consistently across the school and identify those pupils at risk of exclusion from school who may then be offered additional support. The Behaviour Improvement Programme has also indicated benefits from the appointment of Lead Behaviour Professionals, the work of learning mentors, home-school links workers, Behaviour and Educational Support Teams, nurture groups, alternative curricula, parenting programmes, a range of therapeutic activities (counselling, drama) and other out of school activities. Evaluations of Learning support units and learning mentors within the context of Behaviour Improvement Programmes has shown that the most effective schemes are those where there is whole school support and where programmes are integrated into whole school policy.

 

In the classroom teachers need to establish an 'activity system' which includes attention to goals, tasks, social structure, timing and pacing and resources. These need to be planned and managed to support good behaviour (Doyle, 1990). Where teachers are pressured to take increased responsibility for standards of attainment they tend to become more controlling and the development of learner autonomy is reduced with potentially negative effects on behaviour (Ryan et al., 1985). It is also important for schools to nurture a sense of rights and responsibilities in school cultures (Osler, 2000). Pupils can participate in addressing behaviour issues through participation in school councils and school leadership programmes. In the longer term, students need to internalise the need for responsible behaviour and value it for the benefits which accrue to themselves as well as others.

 

Parents

 

Published and anecdotal accounts refer to the extreme tensions that can often exist between teachers and parents around instances of difficult behaviour (Hanko, 1999, Dowling & Osborne, 1995). Psychological research has demonstrated that teachers, parents and students can often hold clashing beliefs about:

· Who or what are the major causes of difficult behaviour in schools (Miller et al., 2000, Miller et al., 2002; Norwich, Cooper & Maras, 2002) (for instance, teachers consistently see home backgrounds as the strongest cause of the misbehaviour and a large scale national study involving the parents and teachers of over 2, 000 students found that parents and teachers differed significantly in their estimations of the extent of an individual child's difficulties).

· The ways in which parents can most effectively support schools in managing behaviour, (Miller et al., 1998) and

· The persons who are most able to effect positive changes (Miller & Black, 2001)

 

Research such as this may explain the high levels of distrust and discord between teachers and parents in these instances. Systematic collations of highly successful interventions involving educational psychologists, teachers and parents have revealed the nature of the consultative skills displayed by psychologists in moving potentially explosive situations towards positive outcomes that are valued by all parties. In half the sample, the teachers involved had originally judged the pupil in question to have been the most difficult they had ever taught (Miller, 2003).

 

There is also evidence of the effectiveness of parenting programmes (Hallam et al., 2004) and the implementation of alternative curricula for at risk pupils (Hallam et al, 2003; in press).

 

 

We hope that these initial comments are useful to you. We would be happy to provide a more in-depth submission if that would be of use to the Stakeholders' Group.

 

 

 

Dominic Abrams (Professor)

Chair, Research Board

June 2005
References:

 

Bozic, N. & Carter, A. (2002) Consultation groups: participants' views. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18, 3, 189-203.

 

British Psychological Society (2000) Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Guidelines and principles for successful multi-agency working. Leicester: British Psychological Society

 

Bryk, A.S. & Driscoll, M.E. (1988) An Empirical Investigation of the School as a Community. Chicago IL, University Chicago School of Education.

 

Castle, F. & Hallam, S. (2002) A School-Home Liaison Project: Supporting and Involving Parents; Reducing Truancy and Exclusion, TOPIC, 27(4), 1-5, Slough, NFER

 

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. Chichester.

 

Cohen, B. & Thomas, E. (1984) The disciplinary climate of schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 22(2), 113-134.

 

Dowling, E. and Osborne, E. (eds) (1985) The Family and the School: A Joint Systems Approach to Problems with Children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Doyle, W. (1990) Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching, Teachers College Record, 91(3), 347-60.

 

Frederickson, N. (1990) (Ed.) Soft systems methodology. Practical applications in work with schools. University College London. London.

 

Frederickson, N. & Turner, J. (2003) Utilizing the Classroom Peer Group to Address Children's Social Needs. An Evaluation of the 'Circle of Friends' Intervention Approach. Journal of Special Education (in press)

 

Galloway, D. (1983) Disruptive pupils and effective pastoral care, School Organisation, 3(3), 245-54.

 

Gottfredson, D.C. et al. (1993) Managing adolescent behaviour: a multi-year, multischool study, American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 179-215.

 

Graham, P. J. (2004) (Ed.) Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Children and Families (2nd Edn.). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

 

Hallam, S. & Castle, F. (1999a) Evaluation of the Behaviour and Discipline Pilot Projects (1996-99) Supported under the Standards Fund Programme: Research Report RR163. London: Department for Education and Employment.

 

Hallam, S. & Castle, F. (1999b) Evaluation of a School-Home Liaison Project - London Diocesan Board for Schools. Institute of Education, University of London.

 

Hallam, S. & Castle, F. (2001) Reducing Exclusion from School: What can help prevent it? Educational Review, 53(2), 169-179.

 

Hallam, S. & Rogers, L. with Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J & Hallam, J. (2003) Evaluation of Skill Force. London: Institute of Education, University of London. ISBN 1-904128-10-6 pp1-166

 

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2004) Improving children's behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: an examination of good practice. Research Report 585. London: Department for Education and Skills

 

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J., Hallam, J. (in press) Pupils' perceptions of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force. Research Papers in Education.

 

Hanko, G (1999) Increasing competence through collaborative problem solving: using insight into social and emotional factors in children's learning. London. David Fulton.

 

Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.

 

LaVigna, G.W., & Willis, T.J. (1995). Challenging behavior: A model for breaking the barriers to social and community integration. Positive Practices, 1(1), 8-15.

 

Leman, P. J. (2001). The development of moral reasoning. In C. Fraser & B. Burchell (Eds.), Introducing social psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

 

MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S. & Page, C. (2004) A life in secondary teaching: Finding time for learning. National Union of Teachers/Cambridge University Press.

 

Maccoby, E. & Jacklin, C. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

 

Maddern, L., Franey, J., McLaughlin, V. & Cox, S. (2004) An evaluation of the impact of an inter-agency intervention programme to promote social skills in primary school children. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(2), 135 - 57

 

Maras, P. (2001) Citizenship, mentoring and related schemes for children and young people with SEBDs: evidence from research. In P. Cooper (ed) 'We can work it out' What works in educating pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties outside mainstream classrooms. London: Barnados

 

Maras, P. & Cooper, P. (1999) Sex differences, gender issues and EBDs. In P. Cooper (ed) Understanding and supporting children with emotional and behavioural difficulties London: Jessica Kingsley

 

Maras, P., Edgecombe, D., Dobson, S. & Tagoe, P. (2000) 'The bad kids are getting rewarded' Peer mentoring for school pupils. London: National Mentoring Network

 

Maxwell, W.S. (1987) Teachers' attitudes towards disruptive behaviour in secondary schools, Educational Review, 39(3), 203-216.

 

Miller, A. (2003) Teachers, Parents and Classroom Behaviour. A Psychosocial Approach. Maidenhead. Open University Press.

 

Miller, A & Black, L. (2001) Does support for home-school behaviour plans exist within teacher and pupil cultures? Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(3), 245-62

 

Miller A., Ferguson, E. & Simpson, R. (1998) The perceived effectiveness of rewards and sanctions in primary schools - adding in the parental perspective. Educational Psychology, 18, 55-64

 

Miller, A., Ferguson, E. & Byrne, I. (2000) Pupils' causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 85-96

 

Miller, A., Ferguson, E. & Moore, E. (2002) Parents' and pupils' causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 27 - 40

 

Newton, C., Taylor, G. & Wilson, D. (1996) Circles of friends: An inclusive approach to meeting emotional and behavioural needs. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(4), 41-9.

 

Norwich, B., Cooper, P. & Maras, P. (2002) Attentional and activity difficulties: findings from a national study. Support for Learning, 17(4), 182-186

 

Osler, A. (2000) Children's rights, responsibilities and understandings of school discipline, Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 49-67.

 

Ryan, R.M. et al., (1985) A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C.Ames & R. Ames (Eds) Research on Motivation in Education Vol: 2 The Classroom Milieu, San Diego, Academic Press.

 

Rhodes, J & Ajmal, Y (1995). Solution Focused Thinking in Schools. BT Press: London.

 

Smith, P.K. (1999) England and Wales. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.) The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. Routledge.

 

Stringer, P, Stow, L., Hibbert, K., Powell, J. and Louw, E. (1992) Establishing staff consultation groups in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 8(2), 87-96.

 

Wayson, W.W et al. (1982) Handbook for developing schools with good discipline. Bloomington IN, Phi Delta Kappa.

 

Young, S. & Holdorf, G. (2003) Using solution focused brief therapy in individual referrals for bullying. Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(4), 271 - 83