El coraje del pueblo

This section considers systemic influences on TAs supporting children’s mental health. The influences discussed are:

• Lack of time

• The relationship between learning and mental health • Safeguarding as a solution

• Working with other staff • Hierarchy

5.4.1 Lack of Time

The idea that TAs did not have enough time to support children’s mental health was voiced by participants. This was expressed by TAs who had a specific role to support mental health as well as those who did not. Some ideas shared about the lack of time were other demands in the school day (e.g. children needing to get back to lessons); other demands of the TA role; and limited one-to-one time with children.

Other research conducted in primary schools seems to contradict this finding. Groom and Rose (2005) concluded that due to lack of time in school, TAs provide an additional resource to support children’s mental health. Bracewell (2011) also found that TAs had more time to spend working one-to-one with children than teachers did. TAs may have more time to support children’s mental health than teachers do; however, this research, which focussed on TAs’ experiences, suggests that TAs may still feel that they do not have enough time to dedicate to this. The current findings may reflect changes in schools since 2011. For instance, senior leaders recently stated that school funding had reduced and consequently, so had the number of TAs (DfE, 2019b); some described using TAs to support whole year groups, rather than one class.

Additionally, Ofsted’s (2019) report found that a lack of time was frequently mentioned by school staff as a problem in their roles. The report focussed on general workload, rather than supporting children’s mental health, nevertheless, a general feeling of limited time will impact school staff’s capacity to support mental health. The report seemed to focus on teachers’ and school leaders’ views, however when exploring the reasons for their perceptions of workload, many of the pressures mentioned were systemic (e.g. staff shortages, lack of support from external professionals, changes to external examinations, and Ofsted inspections). Changes to external examinations is particularly pertinent for primary schools. The House of Commons Education Committee (2017) found that the National Curriculum introduced in 2014 and the subsequent changes to the primary school standard attainment tests (SATs) resulted in increased pressure on school staff and pupils.

Although research tends to focus on government pressures on teachers (e.g. Bracewell, 2011; Burton & Goodman, 2011; Sherman, 2003), Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory describes that individuals do not live in isolation from their surrounding systems. Applying this theory would suggest that, much like children, TAs are likely impacted by government pressures, which will impact the schools that they work in and the people they work with. As with the multiple components that were referenced with

school-child relationships (Pianta, 2011), there are multiple components that interact within TAs’ relationships, both within levels (e.g. how they are perceived or communicated to by an individual) and across levels (e.g. the perception of TAs based on the climate of the school). Taken together, the systemic pressures that currently exist in schools may impact the pressure that TAs feel.

5.4.2 The Relationship between Learning and Mental Health

TAs also thought about the relationship between learning and mental health. As a group, the participants recognised that learning and school pressures (e.g. SATs) can impact children’s mental health as well as mental health impacting on learning. This is supported by research; for instance, The Children’s Society (2016) report stated that

“satisfaction with school work was the most strongly related with the overall ‘total difficulties’ measure of mental ill-health” (p.63); indicating that children’s perception of school work influences their mental health. Similarly, in primary schools, it was widely reported by education unions that the changes to SATs are perceived to be detrimental for children’s wellbeing (e.g. National Education Union, 2018). On the other hand, symptoms of various mental health disorders may include fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and difficulty sleeping for example (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) which would affect children’s ability to engage in school. These competing demands seemed to impact the participants, with TAs referencing needing to support children emotionally, so that they can access their learning.

5.4.3 Safeguarding as a Solution

When talking about children with mental health difficulties, the TAs often referred to safeguarding routes. It seemed that a referral to a safeguarding lead was perceived as a solution to the ‘problem’ of having a child with mental health difficulties. For instance, Tina alluded to no longer being involved once she had passed on to a safeguarding lead:

So any problems, that’s safeguarding, you know, we just report straight there, then they take it over. (Tina)

TAs closely linked the cause of mental health difficulties to children’s homelives which may have encouraged them to make this connection to safeguarding. In a similar way to how TAs perceived school incidents to impact children’s mental health, this also suggests a linear understanding of how an issue or bad experience at home (e.g. neglect or abuse) will negatively affect children’s mental health. By framing safeguarding as a solution, the TAs may have believed that if the ‘safeguarding issue’ was removed, the children’s mental health would consequently improve. This was evidenced by Karen:

If I know that child’s been dealt with and everything's been sorted, they might have, you know, social workers looking into it or, you know, you know, it's been passed on to the right places, and hopefully everything will turn out well for that child. (Karen) Karen appeared to closely associate a safeguarding referral, and consequently social workers becoming involved, with ‘everything will turn out well for that child’. This may indicate that Karen believed that if the safeguarding threat was dealt with, the child’s mental health would automatically improve.

As well as a potentially linear understanding of mental health influencing TAs’

responses, their actions may also have been driven by fear or lack of confidence. There was a belief shared by some participants that they were unable to directly support children’s mental health when they had a concern about it. This was illustrated by Joanne:

A fear of mental health difficulties (which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter) paired with a belief that they cannot support children with mental health difficulties, may have resulted in the TAs perceiving a safeguarding referral as their only possible response.

If there is a focus on responding to safeguarding needs, and perceiving this as a solution, it could lead to children’s mental health difficulties not being addressed. It may also suggest that TAs are unsure what action the school should take if they had a concern about a child’s mental health but did not consider it a safeguarding concern. A similar discovery was found by Bracewell (2011) who identified that staff would only take action in response to a concern about a child’s background if it warranted a safeguarding referral. Staff did not make the link between background information and the need for preventative measures to support children’s mental health. Taken together, these findings indicate that more input may be needed in schools to help them: (1) know what appropriate action should be taken if a child is suffering from poor mental health, regardless of whether they would consider this a safeguarding concern or not; and (2) use their knowledge of what can negatively influence children’s mental health (e.g. social deprivation or parental separation) to implement preventative measures.

5.4.4 Working with Other Staff

The TAs that did not have a specific role supporting mental health seemed to share similar roles and were clear about the boundaries of their role. They suggested that other staff would run specific interventions and speak to parents. All participants discussed using other staff as a support. They talked about going to colleagues (e.g. teachers, senior

leaders, and pastoral staff) when they were unsure what to do and needed advice. Bracewell (2011) similarly found that TAs will receive support from colleagues and that they often liaise with the class teacher.

The extent to which this advice and support was collaborative compared to directive, seemed to vary between the participants. However, regardless of TAs’ experiences or

whether they had received additional input on mental health, they still discussed needing support from colleagues. Aisha, who had a MHFA role, talked about support from other staff and described that they ‘rely upon each other’. This reliance on colleagues may indicate an area where TAs would benefit from additional input from external professionals (e.g. EPs) to discuss and reflect on their practice.

5.4.5 Hierarchy

The hierarchy in the school systems was evident in the TAs’ accounts. TAs talked about needing permission from teachers to take children out of the classroom or do certain activities with them. TAs’ lower hierarchical position also appeared to result in them not being told information; for instance, background information about a child that was not shared even when they were working closely with that child. This suggests that TAs may not be seen as important people to inform about things that may impact children’s presentation in school. In other research, the hierarchical system resulted in TAs not being invited to review meetings and not having opportunities to share their knowledge of a child (Roffey- Barentsen & Watt, 2014).

Arnold et al. (2011) point out that within the exploration of power dynamics in society, the extremities of power are encouraged (i.e. those who are more powerful use their power to maintain this) and that this can be applied to TAs. The treatment of TAs within the school system (e.g. not inviting them to meetings) perpetuates their low hierarchical position. However, if TAs are not told information and are not consulted about or included in meetings about a child, this may result in helpful information being missed.

An additional point was made by Joanne who explained that she had not received feedback from mental health training that staff had been on. Joanne felt unable to question this decision due to her position in the school; her frustration and feelings of being

undervalued were apparent in her account. Undervaluing TAs could lead to them undervaluing themselves. For instance, Karen found it difficult to recognise the positive impact she had on children; attributing success to other people. The concept of circular

causality can be used to explain this (Dallos & Draper, 2010). This cyclical pattern of events describes the phenomena that an action results in another action which leads to a repeat of the first action, and so on.

Figure 2

A Diagram Representing the Researcher’s Interpretation of Circular Causality in the Hierarchical School System.

This diagram illustrates the researcher’s postulation that if TAs’ contributions are not valued and that they are not included in training or given knowledge, this could lead to them losing confidence or believing that they cannot support children’s mental health. If TAs are viewed by the system as having little contribution, they may internalise this belief.

Bandura’s notion of perceived self-efficacy can help to explain this. Bandura explains that ‘Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations’ (1982, p. 122). In this context, the TAs’ perceived self-efficacy relates to how well they believe they can support children’s mental health. There are various factors that can increase perceived self-efficacy

TAs are not told information/ not asked for information/ do not recieve training

TAs feel undervalued

TAs lack confidence/ believe that they have

nothing to offer Their perceived self-

efficacy reduces TAs do not do things

(or believe they are not doing things) to support children's

mental health The system has a

narrative that TAs do not contribute significantly to children's mental health

(experience, modelling, social persuasion, and physiological factors) but perceived self- efficacy can also be easily reduced.

Bandura (1994) explained that constricting opportunities and undermining motivation results in disbelief about one’s own ability. Therefore, there is a potential that the hierarchical system in schools could encourage TAs to be undervalued. If their opportunities are

restricted (e.g. not being provided with training) and their motivation being undermined (e.g. not being given helpful information about a child) this could result in TAs’ perceived self- efficacy reducing and subsequently their behaviour matching their level of belief (e.g. not believing that they can impact a child’s mental health). Bandura’s theoretical concept can also be applied to support TAs’ perceived self-efficacy, and this will be discussed later in this chapter.

5.4.6 Frustration with the System

This theme was only present in Tina’s interview; as described, Tina’s role differed from the other participants. Tina described a high level of frustration with systems that contributed to supporting children’s mental health; including funding, paperwork and support from external professionals. She felt that the necessary processes took a long time and children were left without support. It seemed that because of Tina’s perception that help should be outsourced, it resulted in her not recognising any contribution she could make to support children’s mental health.

When considering other research, findings support this, indicating that teachers experience frustration with systemic factors (e.g. external professionals) when working with children with mental health difficulties (Connelly et al., 2008). Green (2011) suggested that these frustrations can reduce teachers’ confidence in taking ownership of supporting children’s mental health; this may have been experienced by Tina. It is notable that this theme was only present for Tina and that supporting research involved teachers. It is possible that due to differences in Tina’s role (e.g. Tina discussed contacting parents whereas this was not a role shared by the other TAs), she may have held other

responsibilities, regarding referrals and seeking external support, that were closer to a teacher’s than a TA’s.