Whilst interpersonal relationships have received significant attention within the previous sections of this chapter, relationships between establishments (community factors) have also been found in this study to indirectly affect the PESS experiences of LACYP. This section builds upon the previous discussion to identify the significance of providing training for teachers around the contexts, experiences and needs of LACYP to contribute to enhanced practice in this area. This could ultimately lead to improved educational experiences for LACYP within their general schooling and, within this context, their experiences of PESS.
A body of literature implies that more could be done to increase the capacity of mainstream schools to meet the needs of a minority of LACYP who may present challenges, such as those identified within Chapter 6 (see PRT, 2016). For example, Selwyn’s (2015a) work documented existing research on young people’s views of their care experiences and found that several studies reported on the issue of stigma and negative labelling within schools. In particular, it was noted that LACYP thought that teachers and peers mistakenly assumed that children were placed in care due to their own poor behaviour, or that some teachers failed to understand the difficulties LACYP faced before entering care and how this could affect their conduct. This finding was also echoed by some of the local authority participants in this study. For example, Debbie Howell, a VSH from a local authority in North East England, explained that schools’ understandings of LACYP was a real challenge facing Virtual Schools and attributed this, in part, to a lack of training:
Schools’ understanding of behaviour of looked-after children is a challenge … if they haven’t had the training you really see, you know some of the sanctuaries [sanctions] they use make the behaviour worse. So that’s a challenge in trying to get an understanding around the attachment, the importance of positive relationships and understanding the mental health needs of the young people.
The Prison Reform Trust (2016) argue that statutory guidance ought to assert the important role of the local authority in tackling the stigma which children in care can encounter. Staff training on issues of attachment and the effects of trauma, along with a general overview of the how local authority care teams and/or Virtual Schools work, have previously been suggested to combat the problem of stigma by forming part of core teacher training and CPD programmes (APPG, 2012; PRT, 2016). Within this study, issues surrounding LACYP and attachment were mentioned on numerous occasions during the interviews with local authority professionals, as the following VSH respondent demonstrates:
Sarah Kingston: We try and teach schools about disruptive, emotional attachment, so they understand the children aren’t just being naughty, they’re damaged. So we do a lot of training on that. So yes, it’s tightening their awareness as to what the key issues are for looked-after children, and to tighten some things that will make them fall off the education scene.
Discussions around attachment are not new when researching LACYP, having informed an array of international literature and research over the course of the last few decades (e.g. Atwool, 2006; Dozier and Rutter 2008; Rutter, 2008; Hannon et al., 2010; Woodhouse, 2013). The theory of attachment essentially looks at the psychosocial development of a child’s relationship with significant others (in most cases the birth parents) and helps facilitate an understanding of how we connect with others and how such connections can
lead to adaptive or maladaptive outcomes (Lambert, 2001). The initial attachment a child has with a parent can cognitively affect subsequent attachments (e.g. with friends and family) whereby children analyse the social relationships that they have previously formed in terms of the availability, care and support offered by the other person. However, attachment is not something that is only prevalent in childhood, rather it manifests itself as a psychological need that continues throughout an individual’s entire life, where maintaining attachments (relationships) remains a primary goal (Rutter, 2008). It seems that whilst attachment issues for LACYP have previously been evidenced within wider research, the local authority professionals interviewed within this study also recognised and witnessed this within their roles. All respondents who spoke of attachment suggested that there was either a lack of understanding or a need for understanding to enhance LACYP’s wider school experiences. Several local authority professionals, for example, spoke of the need to provide specific training for staff within schools as a way to address this issue, as evidenced by the following quote from Heather Roberts, a VSH in the north of England:
We have really good working relationships [with schools]. We’ve done a lot of training with them to get them on board about all the issues. You know, the trauma, the loss, the separation, the trust issues. The fact that having contact with the birth family can affect … a child so badly, that the next day at school they’re not in a position to learn sometimes, do you know what I mean. And we’ve worked through a lot of these issues with schools.
Such sentiments add to existing literature that has identified training for staff within schools as a gap in provision that can act as a barrier to the educational achievement of young people (APPG, 2012). It is argued that more work needs to be done with teachers to help them understand what underpins the disruptive and difficult to manage behaviour that can be exhibited by LACYP, equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to have the confidence to know what intervention is likely to be the most effective. Understanding LACYP within the broader context of their lives has been a recurrent theme throughout this study. This issue has attempted to be addressed by a Virtual School from the Midlands, with Sandra Scott (VSH) stating:
We’ve spent a lot of time trying to train people in understanding it [attachment]. So, we can make changes in how children and young people are taught in our schools, so that they can actually be maintained in our schools … I have a statutory duty to offer training for Designated Teachers for looked-after children … We will train anybody who needs to be trained, but if you like our statutory focus should be on the statutory duty, the statutory post of Designated Teachers.
Most of the training mentioned by the local authority professionals was specifically for the Designated Teacher within each school, reflecting local authorities’ statutory duty under Section 20 of the Children and Young Person’s Act 2008 to ensure that the Designated Teacher undertakes appropriate training (see section 3.4). Whilst Designated Teachers hold a key role within the educational life of LACYP, that teacher does not always accompany the young person and therefore the support given by other teachers (including PE teachers) within the school setting is equally important (APPG, 2012). Some Virtual School respondents had attempted to address this gap in provision by proactively offering training to colleagues. For example, Debbie Howell explained:
We do a lot of whole school training as well. So, they get an actual, our children in care council do some training for schools … which is about what it feels like to be a looked- after child. So, a lot of, so that would include PE staff in that if it’s delivered whole school.
There was a shared consensus among respondents that more staff within schools would benefit from such whole-school training; however, resource capacity, funding and time constraints meant that this was not always possible. In Chapter 7 (section 7.3) it was noted by one local authority professional (Gareth Houlston) that completing the survey as part of this study had raised an awareness that perhaps there was a gap in provision for the training of PE teachers: “It might be worth doing some training with PE staff around inclusion of children who are anxious about PE and what they can do to support it.” A similar perspective was also evident within the PE teacher data, where (as identified in the previous section) being offered training to support LACYP within PESS was felt to be useful, as David Andrews’ narrative demonstrates:
Areas like this [supporting LACYP] you can, you can never have too much training. Of course, it can take priority over other bits that need just as much priority, but in this area I would say there is definitely a need for more training … How to deal with the emotional needs of students, how to spot emotional difficulties that these children can go through, and how to encourage and motivate them.
The data presented thus far indicates that there is a clear argument to be made for training PE teachers (indeed, all teachers) in understanding the trajectories of LACYP, in order that they might be able to better support and accommodate these young people within PESS activities. At present, there is no reference to LACYP within the national Teachers’ Standards37 for trainee teachers38 (DFE, 2011). Albeit generic, there is an expectation that
teachers “have a secure understanding of how a range of factors can inhibit pupils’ ability to learn, and how best to overcome these” (DfE, 2011, p.11).
Specifically, and in close connection to the findings in Chapter 6, there have been references to LACYP’s emotional and social deficits resulting from attachment issues, suggesting a need for LACYP to also be supported in developing positive relationships. Having the ability to forge relationships with other children and adults has been noted as positively affecting marginalised children and young people at school, such as improvements in their attendance and attainment (Hayden, 2007). Additional research has also shown that involvement in activities may afford opportunities to build positive relationships, which in turn may result in better outcomes for youths participating in these activities (Mahoney and Stattin, 2000; Sandford et al., 2008a,b). The findings from this study, therefore, indicate that the PESS experiences of LACYP both affect, and are affected by, peer relationships, as the final section now demonstrates.
37 The Teachers’ Standards are used across England to assess the practice of all trainees working towards QTS
(Qualified Teacher Status), and all those completing their statutory induction period. They are also used to assess the performance of all teachers with QTS (DfE, 2011).
38 Specific reference is made to those “with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English