A number of studies were identified during the initial broad survey of the literature that focus on factors that support the reintegration and inclusion of students experiencing SEBD into mainstream settings. The findings from these were seen to be relevant to the research question and to be able to contribute to the realist synthesis regarding effective behaviour policies.
Factors identified by the DfES (2004b) through a postal survey of 14 LAs, as conducive to the reintegration of excluded students include: the involvement of parents/carers in planning the re-integration; good sharing of information within school, with parents and with other agencies; a dedicated key worker and an inclusive school and LA culture committed to meeting children‟s individual needs. It was concluded from the survey that there is not a single approach to re-integration that will be successful in all situations; rather, a range of approaches which vary across local contexts can be successful if they are underpinned by an inclusive ethos and practices and draw on a wide range of resources. This accords with the realist view that the successful implementation of a programme will depend on local contextual implementation effects.
Daniels et al. (2003), from an analysis of 193 permanently excluded children, demonstrate the ecological interaction between a child and wider contextual factors. Daniels et al. report that successful inclusion at a new secondary school was dependent on the receiving school having a highly inclusive ethos, the Local Authority providing high levels of support to the school and the child being motivated to make a success of the new school placement.
102
Lawrence (2011) explored factors influencing the success of re-integrating secondary school students from a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) to mainstream education through a thematic analysis of views of staff at the PRU and the mainstream school. It was noted by staff that the process of re-integration, successful for some students but not for others, was complex, multifaceted and likely to be specific to the local context. Lawrence‟s analysis elucidates factors at the child, family, school and wider
contextual level which support successful re-integration. Child factors included a desire and a belief by the child that they could be successful (the context), which needed to be combined with the child making an effort to be successful (the mechanism). This was considered most likely when the child had good or improving self-esteem and self-worth. Factors at the staff level included clearly explaining to the child the re-integration process and reassuring the child that they could be successful. At the parental level it was found re-integration was more likely to be successful when the parent was supportive of, and positive towards their child and their education, and where parents were able to share responsibility for their child‟s
actions. At the school level it was important for staff to inform parents of their expectations and progress of the child. Systemic, contextual factors included clear channels of regular communication between parents, the PRU and the mainstream provision and for all those involved in the re-integration process to have shared goals. An inclusive ethos and approach demonstrated by the mainstream provision was found to be crucial for successful re-integration. A child-centred, rather than school-centred approach was important, for instance through the development of an individual support package including resources such as a personal mentor, some access to off-site group work or a focus on the child‟s interests and strengths.
103
Swinson et al. (2003) evaluated the transfer of 12 pupils from a specialist school catering for children experiencing SEBD to a mainstream secondary school, and highlight the importance of classroom context and peer influences on behaviour. The study was completed by observing the students in lessons and comparing their behaviour with that of the other pupils in the school. The pupils were supported by a specialist teacher and two specialist support assistants. The results of the observations indicated that the behaviour of the children from the SEBD school was very similar to that of the other children at the school. Only two of the children who had attended the SEBD school showed behaviour significantly worse than their peers. Overall they behaved very well in well run classes, but their behaviour deteriorated in less well-organised lessons. It was also noted the pupils‟ behaviour
deteriorated over the course of the school day, which was the case for all pupils, but was more so for those from the SEBD school. The behaviour of all the pupils was worst for the last period of the day. Generally, little positive feedback was given to students about their behaviour from teachers. Swinson et al. (2003) conclude that the change in school setting had a significant impact on the behaviour of the pupils, and in particular the behaviour of the rest of the class appeared to be a key factor. Swinson concluded, however, “this ecosystemic perspective does not yet appear to be incorporated into teachers‟ thinking” (Swinson et al., 2003 p 73).
Fletcher-Campbell (2001) introduces the relevance of the ethos and values of a school as an organisation that underpin the approach taken to supporting SEBD. From an analysis of the findings from three studies completed at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (each respectively focusing on the inclusion of children with special educational needs; children who are „looked after‟
104
by their Local Authority; and children identified as experiencing SEBD), Fletcher- Campbell concludes that, although quantifiable outcome data such as exclusion rates, attendance figures for children at pupil referral units or measures of progress in attainment indicate how much children are included or excluded from the educational system, more relevant contextual information is:
“the way in which students are included and excluded by what goes on in the classroom and the school – by what they do and what is done to them, as it were. This is the more qualitative aspect: it may be revealed by „raw‟ levels of attainment, by numbers at the stages of the Code of Practice, or by value added measures…but more readily gravitates into the slippery areas of school ethos, personal and social education, and the whole matter of values. Essentially, exclusion understood in terms of practice – rather than official status – signals a breakdown in relationships, either pedagogic or social”
(Fletcher – Campbell, 2001, p. 71).
Fletcher-Campbell suggests that „relationships‟, in addition to interpersonal
relationships, also include wider contextual relationships such as those between the curriculum and society, or between different interest groups. The relevance of such inter-relationships are discussed further in Section 3.3.iii in relation to ecosystemic models of understanding behaviour. In considering a framework for understanding exclusion Fletcher-Campbell suggests, from analysis of the three research studies, that there is an „inclusion-exclusion‟ continuum upon which schools are positioned depending on the general ethos and value position of the school as an organisation. At one end of the continuum the child is seen as being „problematic‟. The problem
could be the result of a deficiency that the child is believed to have (for instance poor social skills); or that arises from the child‟s social background, for instance
inadequate parenting; or alternatively the school itself is seen to be deficient, for example in material resources, teacher competence or pastoral care. At the other end of the continuum the “apparent conflict between the young person and the
105
school may be seen in terms of a failure in relationships and communication, in understanding of rights and concomitant responsibilities – something to do with the ethos and moral dimension of the school” (p. 74).
In addition to considering the contextual element of the school ethos, Fletcher- Campbell (2001) researched students‟ perceptions of factors they felt supported
good behaviour in class. These are included in Table 3.4 below. The factors identified include good working relationships and an appropriate curriculum, but also highlights the importance of additional support provided to students by teaching assistants, involving students in school development and the effective monitoring of SEBD.
Table 3.4 Factors schools can develop to promote successful inclusion of children experiencing SEBD (developed from Fletcher-Campbell, 2001)
Close working between the school and the wider community (including parents, social workers and support staff) to agree programme values and aims.
Appropriate differentiation to work to the student‟s level of ability.
Effective use of teaching assistants to support class teachers and students to understand the child‟s response to different teaching approaches (as teaching assistants are able to observe the child responding to a variety of teachers and lessons)
Valuing the involvement of students at the school level, for instance involving them in the development of school behaviour policies.
Publically celebrating student effort and achievement across a range of activities. A monitoring system that can give forewarning of potential difficulties.
Fletcher-Campbell (2001) concludes that these perceived reasons for exclusion are issues that schools can and should address. Timmins and Miller (2007) suggest that
106
the steps Fletcher-Campbell identifies schools can take to prevent exclusions can be identified as mechanisms in Realistic Evaluation terms. That is:
providing clear expectations of behaviour and personal organisation (M);
providing clear criteria relating to what pupils are expected to learn (M);
attempting to understand why pupils are not attempting to demonstrate appropriate behaviour and personal organisation (M); and
attempting to understand why pupils are not learning (M).
(from Pawson and Tilley, 2007, p 11). The Ofsted survey Good practice in re-engaging disaffected and reluctant students in secondary schools (Ofsted, 2008) involved 29 secondary schools selected as demonstrating a record of sustained good practice in re-engaging children termed disaffected in their learning, with the aim of identifying the successful actions (mechanisms operating in supportive contexts) taken by the schools. I have attempted to categorise the key findings from this survey in terms of whether they appear to refer to a context, a mechanism or an outcome in Table 3.5 overleaf.
In summary to this section, synthesising the research regarding the successful reengagement of children experiencing SEBD leads to a possible theory (following Timmins and Miller, 2007):
A school will be able to include children experiencing SEBD successfully (O) where there is commitment to this at various levels of the system, including the national, Local Authority, school, family and student level (C). Within this context, a range of strategies (M) can be effective.
107
Table 3.5 Good practice in re-engaging disaffected and reluctant students in secondary schools (Ofsted, 2008)
Staff share a commitment to helping pupils succeed (C), which they expressed clearly to pupils and their families (M).
The school ethos valued and respected the needs of individuals (C) and pupils felt part of the school (O).
Temporary withdrawal from classes and training in life skills (M) to help pupils change their attitudes (C) and improve their learning was very effective (O).
At KS4, a high quality, flexible curriculum (C), involving a range of
accredited training providers outside school (M), was effective in engaging pupils more in their learning (O)
Pastoral support was managed by assigned support staff (C). They acted as the first point of contact for all parents and carers and directed them to the most appropriate member of staff if they could deal with the issue
themselves (M)
Communication with pupils and their families was very effective (M). It ensured they were fully involved in the process and had confidence in the decisions that were made (O). Pupils knew they were listened to (O) and felt they could contribute to decisions about their future (O). Home school liaison staff played a critical role (C)
Teaching assistants provided important support for individuals (C), helping to maintain their interest and cope successfully with any crises (M).This allowed teachers to focus on teaching the whole class (O).
Robust monitoring of academic, personal and social progress (M) and close collaboration with primary schools and other services for CYP (C) ensured that pupils who were likely to become disaffected were identified early (O). They received appropriate support before and after they entered secondary school (C)