Context is linked to circumstances and Pawson & Tilley (1997) include the spatial location and the social aspects of the context. A number of models of group supervision have been discussed in the previous section, and these have been used in a range of contexts. However, Chalfant & Pysh (1981) highlight the potential use within education:
“Teachers ordinarily have few forums to share their problems in a professional way and brainstorm solutions with one another. Building level teams provides a forum where teachers, like physicians, can consult with one another, share their expertise, and benefit from one another’s experience and areas of speciality.” (p.57)
This quote stresses the absence of group approaches for teachers in the US to share their work and problems with each other in a forum, and leads to consideration of other contexts where professional have limited opportunities to share their work with each other.
Within education in the UK, although supervision is relatively rare, EPs have used group supervision within special schools (Gersch & Rawkins, 1987), with head teachers (Gupta, 1985), across different sectors in education (Hanko, 1987), within the further education sector (Guishard, 2000) and with groups of schools (Evans, 2005). Both Farouk (2000) and Newton (1995) used a group supervision approach with teachers working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Stringer et al (1992) describe how the staff who were trained to run a staff consultation group came from all phases and sectors of education: nursery, infant, first, junior, primary, middle and secondary, special schools and also support services.
There are models of group supervision that draw from more than one site, such as Hanko (1987) who worked with teachers from across two or more schools serving the same community and could be described as having the same shared goals of supporting children and families in this community. She suggested this had particular advantages, as colleagues from other schools may have previously taught the focus child or his/her siblings and may be able to add something of the family situation. Evans (2005) also details how Powys EPS worked with groups of two to five schools, as the local authority contained a large number of small rural schools often located some distance between each other. Evans (2005) suggests that this was particularly beneficial for staff in the small, rural schools, as they often worked in isolated situations and developed local partnerships to support each other.
The relationship with managers within group supervision processes can be considered a feature of the context. Norwich & Daniels (1997) did not include head teachers in the Teacher Support Teams (TSTs), and suggested that the TSTs be comprised of SEN co-ordinator, a member of the senior management and a more junior class teacher. Chalfant & Pysh (1989) reported 91% of the Teacher Assistance Teams (TATs) cited support from the building principal as a key factor contributing to their effectiveness, and that there are three aspects needed within this support:
making time available for the team to meet regularly;
showing a positive attitude to the TAT by encouraging use of the team, reinforcing and giving incentives for those who do participate and publicising team effort and success; and
planning how to set up the team through considering the needs, interest and readiness of the staff, the resources needed and how the team will fit alongside other structures in the school.
Similarly, Stringer et al (1992) stress that one of the four main factors that support the establishment of the staff consultation groups was that the group be valued and supported by the head teacher/senior management. Hanko (1999) reinforces this is needed within the entry phase and that it is:
“…crucial to secure the assistance of the head teacher and senior staff that the aims of such innovative support are congruent with the interests of the school……..Their active support is vital to legitimatise the potential group, to protect… its arrangements against such hazards as simultaneous competing meetings and to allow the growing insights to be put into practice.” (p.101)
In this quote Hanko emphasises the critical importance of the managers in supporting the group in practical ways to allow the group to maximise its potential use to the staff. As an inhibiting factor, Norwich & Daniels (1997) reported that if a head teacher was sceptical or hostile to setting up a TST, even if the staff were in favour of establishing a TST, it was unlikely to be successful.
Hanko (1999) advises of the need to discuss with head teachers the importance of their support, but also the potential negative impact of the head teacher’s presence in the group and the necessity of confidentiality of the details of the discussions. She proposes this entry phase is negotiated fully before any introductory meetings with participants. The entry phase was also found to be vital by Norwich & Daniels (1997), as very similar to the professional contract described by Proctor & Inskipp (2001), and the early stage contracting before the group starts as described by Hawkins &
Shohet (2006). Farouk (2004) also saw the entry phase in two parts: firstly developing the support of the school management team and secondly gaining the commitment of individual teachers.
There are differences in opinion within the literature as to whether models of group supervision support the attendance or absence of managers. Gersch & Rawkins (1987) reported that the head teacher was invited to the teacher support group but Chalfant & Pysh (1989) suggested principals only participated on the Teacher Assistance Teams when requested. In comparison, Norwich & Daniels (1997) explicitly do not include head teachers in the TSTs, although senior staff in the form of school-based special needs teachers (SENCos) tended to be a part of the TSTs. Hanko (1999) suggests that the presence of a head teacher in a problem-solving group can:
“…easily inhibit the process of skill enhancement by virtue of his position as assessor of staff competence.” (p.101)
Hanko (1999) supports this view by drawing upon Hargreaves’ (1972) work that describes how difficult it is for teaching staff to talk freely in meetings with the head teacher present, even when on the best of terms, and there can be a tendency for staff to impersonate what they feel is the head teacher’s ideal of a good teacher or become silent in the presence of the head teacher. Stringer et al (1992) support Hanko’s view in promoting the absence of head teachers from groups due to their management role in school. Hawkins & Shohet (2006) make no direct comment on managers being present or absent in group supervision, but do encourage that this is made clear in the early stage contracting – the professional contract – before the group starts. Chalfant & Pysh’s (1989) approach to this issue may be helpful, as managers could be invited
when supervisees wish for them to participate, and therefore it may be that managers could ask to attend when they wish to bring an issue to the group.
The present study has explored the use of group supervision in a new context unconsidered by the previous research: Children’s Centres with Family Support Workers. Therefore, in order to consider whether this is an appropriate context for group supervision, the following research question has been devised:
What are the features of the context that promote or inhibit the use of group supervision with Family Support Workers in Children’s Centres?
It was also important to consider the key features of the participants and how this affected the use of group supervision as an intervention, and the following research question was devised:
What mechanisms within Family Support Workers promote or inhibit the use of group supervision with them?