Valoración jurídica de ambos procedimientos

A common theme of many studies that investigate the factors that promote successful inclusion of students who experience SEBD is a focus on the views of children about their educational experiences (Pomeroy, 1999; Jones, 2005; Gunter and Thomson, 2007). Gaining the views of those directly involved in a programme is central to the Realistic Evaluation approach.

Wise and Upton (1998) examined factors that students experiencing SEBD perceived as having influenced their behaviour, with particular emphasis on an analysis of the impact of the mainstream school on their difficulties. 36 students, attending two special schools for children experiencing SEBD, were interviewed using an “informant style“(Powney and Watts, 1987). Wise and Upton identified a

number of key areas to be covered in the interviews, but within this structure allowed interviewees to respond and to give information freely.

Wise and Upton‟s analysis of the interviews indicates that poor behaviour can result

from any one or a combination of a number of school-related contextual factors which are organised into the following themes:

95 1. the size of the school and class;

2. teacher qualities;

3. a curriculum that is not presented at the right level of difficulty; and 4. social interactions with other students.

With regards size of school and class, Wise and Upton suggest not all students respond in the same way to larger schools or teaching group size. Students experiencing SEBD report they are less able to manage (as a function of their social and emotional difficulties) larger groups than most students. The students reported this is because there is less opportunity to talk directly with teachers (and be listened to by teachers) and because the more impersonal, authoritarian atmosphere larger groups often necessitate is also more difficult for them to cope with. Similarly, OFSTED (1995) report there is not a straightforward link between class size and the quality of learning, but that smaller classes are more beneficial to secondary students experiencing SEN.

With regard to the effect teachers can have on outcomes, the students interviewed were particularly concerned with how teachers maintained discipline, how consistent and fair they were, how well teachers were able to meet the students‟ needs and how

good the teachers were at developing positive relationships. Similar qualities in teachers tend to be reported by children experiencing SEBD compared with those who do not (Garner, 1991). However, Wise and Upton, from their conversations with students experiencing SEBD, suggest there is a difference in what these students need from teachers:

“these differences put emphasis on the enhanced needs of pupils with EBD [emotional and behavioural difficulties] from their succeeding mainstream peers, for recognition as individuals and the need for individualised help and support. They appear to want teachers to better

96

understand them and to nurture the more caring side of the teacher/pupil relationship both in and out of the classroom”

(Wise and Upton, 1998, p 7).

Students experiencing SEBD reported teachers did not always take seriously, or were not able to deal effectively with, difficulties with social relations with other students and bullying.

From the interviews with students experiencing SEBD Wise and Upton argue that the curriculum itself is also an important factor involved in the success or otherwise of mainstream inclusion, which needs to be considered in a broader sense for students experiencing SEBD. There is an enhanced role for the curriculum to support the development of the student‟s self-esteem, to provide varied opportunities for

success, and to involve students in their own learning.

Thus, Wise and Upton emphasise the need for an enhanced personalised approach to SEBD based on an understanding of the needs of an individual child that furthers the development of positive relationships and a personalised learning curriculum.

Timmins and Miller (2007), reviewing this study, suggest that many of the factors identified by Wise and Upton may be considered as mechanisms or contexts, but that it is difficult to identify which from the way the research is reported.

However, Timmins and Miller suggest the following mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) can be identified from the conclusion of Wise and Upton that:

“the benefits of listening to pupils (M) may provide them with support of a more therapeutic nature (M). It may also give pupils value and respect (O) and give professionals more insight and an improved understanding of pupil behaviour (O)”

97

O‟Connor, Hodkinson, Burton and Tortensson (2011) gained the views of students and teachers at a secondary school about their experiences of SEBD, using „activity sessions‟ (O‟Kane, 2008) and semi-structured interviews. The authors acknowledge

that factors affecting SEBD are likely to arise from various levels of context, such as family, school and wider society, but suggest, from their analysis, that the factors suggested by students are simple: that teachers were not interested in what they were doing, that school is boring and because they don‟t like school. However, many

questions arise from these broad statements: for example do all of the students experiencing SEBD find all of school boring and for all of the time? It is possible that the student responses are in fact defensive post hoc rationalisations of their situation, rather than a description of causes of SEBD. There is potential that a Realistic Evaluation approach here could provide a deeper analysis and greater utility by examining under what contexts mechanisms are producing such outcomes for students.

McLaughlin (1999) surveyed views of pupils at risk of exclusion who were taking part in a personal tutoring scheme. Pupils highly valued being listened to on a regular basis (a possible mechanism) and they felt this had contributed to preventing their permanent exclusion (the outcome). The teachers, however, often failed to appreciate the value to pupils of such conversations (a context).

Mowat (2009) employed an evaluative case study approach (Bassey, 1999) to investigate the relationship between SEBD and learning. The study, carried out over a five year period, evaluated a group work approach to supporting students experiencing SEBD in a secondary school. The study draws on accounts from a range of educational stakeholders, including students, teachers, and a senior manager, and combines quantitative outcome measures, such as curriculum

98

attainment measures and school attendance with qualitative data, collected for instance through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. The quantitative data did not indicate any improvements in attainment; however the qualitative data indicated that the small group work had impacted positively on the dispositions of some students. In this study a purely quantitative design focused on statistically measurable outcomes would not have highlighted the contextual change in attitudes that occurred for a number of students. A Realistic Evaluation design would, in addition, have the potential to consider why a change in attitude occurred for some students, but not others. As noted in Section 3.3 in relation to ecosystemic and behavioural approaches to understanding behaviour, interactional processes can have planned and unplanned consequences for behaviour.

A review of research by the EPPI-centre (2008) highlighted a particular strategy that improved learner outcomes was personalised teaching that focused on the quality of the teacher-pupil relationship. Ewen and Topping (2012) in a study of the effects of a personalised learning programme on students experiencing SEBD, noted positive outcomes can occur (including a reduced probability of exclusion and increasing

educational success), but identify two key contextual influences on success as:

the involvement of the children in constructing the personal curriculum; and

the presence of a supportive key worker able to identify and intervene early with behaviour difficulties as soon as they arose.

99

Pomeroy (1999) used semi-structured interviews to gain the views of 33 secondary school students who had been permanently excluded from school.

This group was chosen because:

“as the recipients of policy-in-practice, they possess a knowledge of the educational system which is not necessarily known to teachers, parents or policy makers. In order to fully understand an educational phenomenon, such as exclusion, it is important to construct this understanding from all relevant perspectives. Too often the viewpoint of the student remains unheard. The students…have had a unique, if unenviable, school experience”

(Pomeroy, 1999, p 466).

The study identifies three key contextual difficulties within the school and wider systems: relationships with teachers; relationships with peers at school; and factors outside of the school such as home life or being involved in crime. Relationships with teachers were identified as the most important of these. Similarly, Wallace (in Rudduck, Chaplain and Wallace, 1996) reports secondary school students found different approaches to teaching were less important to students than the interactive relationship established with teachers. Pomeroy (1999) reports that the students in her study found humiliation (particularly shouting, put downs and sarcasm), not being afforded enough time by teachers, and a failure to intervene by teachers in student conflict particularly negative teacher behaviours. Students valued teachers who worked proactively to establish a meaningful relationship with them, demonstrating pastoral care and concern. With reference to discipline three factors were noted as important: that the discipline is delivered fairly in a respectful manner and that it is seen to be motivated by a concern for the well-being of the students. Pomeroy (1999) notes also a contextual change in the type of relationship wanted by students alters as they get older, particularly during their final years at school. They do not

100

wish teachers to act as surrogate parents, rather “they seem to want a unique relationship in which their non-child status is recognised and responded to accordingly while, at the same time, their pastoral needs are met” (Pomeroy, 1999, p 477). However, Rudduck, Chaplain and Wallace (1996) note:

“the conditions of learning in the majority of secondary schools do not adequately take account of the maturity of young people, nor of the tensions and pressures they face”

(Rudduck et al, 1996, p173).

Cooper and Jacobs (2011), in a review of the effect peer group can have on SEBD, argue this is a significant contextual influence which needs to be taken into account in any analysis of SEBD. This influence can be positive or negative. For example Barth et al. (2004), in a study of 17 schools with a high proportion of SEBD, conclude disruptive students acted as role models for further negative behaviours. More positively, interventions aimed at increasing positive comments students make about other students through being encouraged to notice and comment on good behaviour in others, or „tootling‟, have demonstrated positive effects on social inclusion and classroom behaviour (Skinner, et al., 2002).

Synthesising the literature discussed relating to students the following programme theory can be developed:

Students experiencing SEBD benefit from (O) positive, respectful relationships with staff within which they feel listened to and class sizes that allow such relationships to develop (C), a personalised curriculum appropriately differentiated (M) and positive peer relations (C).

101