Aplicación de cargas y análisis de resultados

Five of the papers included within this review highlighted the protective factors and barriers for excluded CYP, experienced by educational professionals in APs (Broomhead, 2013b, Broomhead, 2014; Hart, 2013; Lawrence, 2011; Levinson & Thompson, 2016). Much of this research explored the reintegration process, focusing on the function of school staff in relation to the CYP, with less emphasis on their lived experiences as individuals providing support.

Protective factors contributing to positive trajectories for excluded CYP were explored by Hart (2013), conducting semi-structured interviews with children and members of staff (a Headteacher, class teacher, TA and SENDCo) within a PRU setting. These findings highlighted that both groups had a shared understanding of the provision and support offered, with protective factors falling within four themes: relationships, teaching and learning, expectations and environment. Participants reported that CYP typically arrived at the provision with limited social skills, emphasising their ability to successfully foster relationships (at both the educator and peer level) due to higher staffing levels. A strong learning ethos for students (particularly in regard to Literacy and Mathematics), alongside opportunities to develop life skills were also perceived as protective, in addition to a consistent approach and high expectations, targets, rules, and boundaries. Further factors assisting the reintegration process included having an environment that looked like a school and offered a ‘family atmosphere’ and a ‘nurturing’ (p.205) approach. It was evident that perceptions were also held about mainstream schools needing to change their practice away

from child-deficit models to inclusive systems, ensuring they adjusted unrealistic views of the CYP and their behaviour. Within this research, questions were raised by the researcher as to how these factors operated to protect the child, particularly when considering the interlinked and complex systems PRUs are nested within. It was clear that a difference also existed between gaining the opinions of participants and accurately establishing the impact of these factors, a study that would require an experimental design and a focus on outcomes. Whilst the research provides rich detail and strong arguments for the methodological approach utilised, criticisms relate to its research-driven focus (using previous literature as a factor informing the current study), shaping the semi-structured interviews conducted and potentially framing the data into pre-existing themes.

Using thematic analysis to explore protective factors and barriers relating to the reintegration of pupils from an AP, Lawrence (2011) highlighted the multiple levels (e.g. child, parent, systemic or wider organisational) that need to be considered for an effective reintegration to take place. Using semi-structured focus group discussions with educators (e.g. Learning Mentors, Heads of Year, Headteachers and staff with reintegration responsibility) from a PRU, Behaviour Support Service and mainstream setting, staff noted the importance of the child’s self-perceptions, views of education and desire to engage, alongside the severity of their SEND. Reintegration was also perceived to be more successful when parents shared responsibility, engaged and supported the AP, with open and clear communication between home and school. At the systemic level, staff noted that reintegration needed to be timely, child-centred, holistic and individualised, in which students were welcomed back into an inclusive mainstream environment. A close-working relationship between the PRU and home school was deemed vital, with clear boundaries and expectations of the roles and duties of one another. The absence of these factors were

barriers to effective reintegration, with participants recommending the need for change in relation to 1) closer working links and relationships, 2) early intervention, 3) holistic analysis of behaviour alongside tailored intervention and 4) improved training for staff. Offering an in-depth analysis of factors contributing to effective reintegration, alongside areas for development and implications for the practice of professionals, this study was further strengthened by its clear methodological design, data analysis approach and attempts to demonstrate the reflexivity of the researcher. Criticisms arose as a result of the amalgamation of a number of staff members from different settings, meaning that it was difficult to both differentiate the views of AP staff or to draw comparisons between groups.

Building on the work of Hart (2013) and Lawrence (2011), Levinson & Thompson (2016) aimed to explore the implicit assumption that reintegration is beneficial through an exploration of the perspectives of teachers and CYP within a PRU setting. Utilising semi- structured interviews, the researchers highlighted that CYP responded to the supportive and therapeutic environments offered within the AP, with teachers tasked with understanding the ‘tipping point’ (p.40), whereby reintegration becomes unlikely to occur. The narratives of staff suggested a strong sense of progress, with teachers describing a positive reintegration rate for approximately 90% of their students, noting a decline in success with increasing age. Like previous studies (Hart, 2013; Lawrence, 2011), effective reintegration was dependant on smooth, clear structures and strong relationships with mainstream schools, alongside a holistic approach, with sensitivity, flexibility and appropriate timing. Reintegration was also viewed as precarious, requiring the support and input of parents and mainstream school structures. Touched upon within a number of previous studies (Broomhead, 2013a; Broomhead, 2016; Hart, 2013; Lawrence, 2011), this paper also noted the challenges associated with mainstream settings, schools perceived as less supportive,

ill-equipped to manage behaviour, impersonal and lacking inclusivity. Whilst building on the findings of the previous literature base, this paper faced challenges due to a failure to include clear information about the number of participants, data analysis process, ethics or reflexivity of the researcher in role. Further limitations related to the use of percentages within the paper, with little information about where this data was generated from. The researcher’s position within the AP added further complexity, increasing the risk of potential bias during both the interview and data analysis process.

Differing from the previous studies, Broomhead (2013b) took a concentrated approach, highlighting the impact of one barrier on educational professionals supporting CYP within APs. Utilising an IPA approach to explore perceptions around SEMH, the authors demonstrated how school staff viewed the CYP’s home lives as ‘complicated’ (p.312), associated with a discourse of family breakdown and lack of responsibility for learning, development and well-being. Associated with these difficulties, staff attempted to compensate for perceived inadequacies by adopting the role of surrogate parents, taking responsibility for addressing the CYP’s socio-emotional well-being. This paper was further built on by Broomhead (2014), emphasising a ‘disjuncture between the norms and values’ (p.136) held by staff and parents, a clash attributed to contrasting caregiving practices and ineffective boundaries and discipline. Social disadvantage, chaotic home circumstances, neglect and abuse were frequently viewed as responsible for SEMH difficulties, with practitioners becoming acclimatised to the difficulties faced when working with CYP and their families. Questions were raised as to whether this desensitisation leads to professional failures in challenging familial circumstances, impacting on the responsibility held by staff

as advocates for their students. Social Graces1 (Burnham, 2012), are also applicable to this study, with queries as to whether a disjuncture is created as a result of a predominantly middle-class profession attempting to encourage aspirations valued by schools that alienate the traditions of some/many parents and their homes. Whilst these papers provided a rich picture of the views held by professionals in terms of education and parenting, the homogeneity of the samples are questioned due to the large variability in practitioners’ titles (e.g. Headteachers, SENDCos, TAs, home-school liaison officers and teachers). It is also important to note that minimal information was provided about the relationship between the researcher and participants, reflexivity which is crucial when employing a phenomenological approach.