Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Texas Libraries]On: 26 November 2014, At: 21:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology in Practice:theory, research and practice ineducational psychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cepp20
Helping secondary schools to be moreinclusive of Year 7 pupils with SENPaula Hodson , Alison Baddeley , Steve Laycock & Sally Williamsa Newcastle District Education Office , UKPublished online: 16 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Paula Hodson , Alison Baddeley , Steve Laycock & Sally Williams (2005)Helping secondary schools to be more inclusive of Year 7 pupils with SEN, Educational Psychologyin Practice: theory, research and practice in educational psychology, 21:1, 53-67, DOI:10.1080/02667360500035207
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667360500035207
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educational Psychology in Practice,Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 53–67
ISSN 0266-7363 (print)/ISSN 1469-5839 (online)/05/010053–15© 2005 Association of Educational PsychologistsDOI 10.1080/02667360500035207
Helping Secondary Schools to be More Inclusive of Year 7 Pupils with SEN
Paula Hodson*, Alison Baddeley, Steve Laycock and Sally WilliamsNewcastle District Education Office, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCEPP103503.sgm
(Submitted September 2003; accepted after revision September 2004)10.1080/02667360500035207Educational Psychology in Practice0266-7363 (print)/1469-5839 (online)Original Article2005Association of Educational Psychologists211000000March 2005PaulaHodsonNewcastle District Education Office20 Sidmouth AvenueNewcastle under LymeStaffordshireST5 [email protected]
The authors, all District Senior Educational Psychologists (DSEPs), were asked by a PrincipalEducation Officer to design and implement a funded project to support inclusion in the county.This action research project aimed to help secondary schools be more inclusive of their Year 7pupils with special educational needs. Inclusion issues were identified using pupils’ responses toquestionnaires based on the Index for Inclusion materials. Schools then formulated interventionsto suit their particular needs. The impact of the interventions was evaluated one year later. Positiveresults are reported in terms of responses from the pupils with SEN.
Introduction and Background
Following a Review of Special Educational Provision in the Education Service(Garner & Bate, 1999), one of the Principal Education Officers asked the fourDistrict Senior Educational Psychologists (DSEPs) to set up a project to supportinclusion. This initiative was part of a local and national context in which inclusionissues were increasingly highlighted (see, for example, Department for Educationand Skills, 2001a, b).
In this particular initiative a specific request was made to work to increase thecapacity of mainstream secondary schools to meet the needs of pupils with learningdifficulties. Generous funding (a maximum of £25,000 for each of the fourDistricts) was made available by the County to support the project during the firstyear.
*Corresponding author. Newcastle District Education Office, 20 Sidmouth Avenue, Newcastleunder Lyme, Staffordshire, ST5 0QN. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
54 P. Hodson et al.
The initial challenge for the DSEPs was to identify a focus for the project thatwould be pertinent to the then current needs of the county. Garner and Bate (1999)had identified a high point in the number of transfers to most of the special schoolsfor pupils with moderate learning difficulties in the county, as pupils approached theage for secondary transfer. Discussion with colleagues in the county suggested that,whilst primary schools supported pupils with special educational needs relativelywell, the transfer to high school was often difficult for these pupils, their parents andtheir schools. Moreover, the transition from one school to another is acknowledgedto be potentially difficult for all children (Durkin, 2000).
It was agreed, therefore, that the focus of the project would be to try to improvethe capacity of high schools to cater for Year 7 pupils with special educational needs.In this study, pupils with special educational needs were defined as pupils on thespecial educational needs register at their school. The group of pupils on the specialeducational needs registers at the secondary schools would not be synonymous withthe group of pupils with learning difficulties at the schools. However, it was agreedthat the pupils listed on the SEN registers would be an acceptable sample to use inthis project.
The DSEPs then needed to identify a framework that would be consistent acrossthe different areas of the county to allow wider conclusions to be drawn. On theother hand the project needed to include some flexibility to meet the differing needsof participating schools.
There is considerable support for the view that a self-review process is a powerfulone in helping schools to identify areas of concern and move forward. MacBeath(1999) presents detailed consideration of the issues in the book Schools must speak forthemselves. Different school self-review options were therefore considered.
The Index for Inclusion materials (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughan, &Shaw, 2000) include a range of questionnaire examples. Adaptations of these ques-tionnaires were used to provide a framework for the project in the participatingschools across the county. These materials were selected since the Department forEducation and Skills (DfES) had supported their use and had funded the circulationof the materials to all schools. The authors explain that, “Inclusion is seen to involvethe identification and minimising of barriers to learning and participation and themaximising of resources to support learning participation” (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13).
It was therefore felt that the use of these materials had the particular advantage inthat they would encourage reflection in the schools on issues of inclusion wider thanthe particular brief of the project. Moreover, the authors welcome “any ways ofusing the materials which help to promote greater reflection about inclusion” (Boothet al., 2000, p. 8) and suggest that they could be used to structure research.
Reports of studies in schools using the Index for Inclusion materials were limited.However, Norwich, Goodchild and Lloyd (2001) reported the use of the Index forInclusion in a secondary school in a county town. In this school, the Index for Inclu-sion was used as a framework to support an already well-established inclusionprogramme. Questionnaire Four had been used and following this a “circle offriends” group had been set up to help foster links between mainstream and pupils
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 55
from a special school. Other initiatives at the school to help support inclusion wereoutlined in the article: these initiatives included special curriculum packages, train-ing for Learning Support Assistants, homework support provision, and a lunchtimelearning support centre offering a wide range of activities.
The DSEPs considered that the views of the pupils themselves were of centralimportance in evaluating their educational experience and the extent to which theyfelt included. The pupil questionnaire responses were therefore given a key role inthis project.
Earlier studies had identified areas of concern for pupils with special educationalneeds in school. For example, Wise (1999) used interviewing techniques to collectthe views of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstreamschools. Two of the main concerns raised by these pupils were the difficulty inaccessing the support of the teacher and the experience of being bullied. Kelly andNorwich (1992) used an interviewing technique with pupils with moderate learningdifficulties both in mainstream and special schools to elicit the view of these pupils.In this study a very high percentage of pupils reported finding some subjects, partic-ularly English, “hard” and the experience of being bullied was again highlighted asof concern.
It was therefore considered important to include questionnaire items that elicitedpupil views on these areas of concern. In addition, an open comments section was tobe attached at the end of the questionnaire.
Method
Secondary schools in the county were circulated with details of the project frame-work and asked if they would be interested in participating. Schools wishing to applyfor participation needed already to have identified inclusion issues on their schooldevelopment plan.
From the schools which expressed interest, four secondary schools, one from eachDistrict in the County, were identified using the criteria outlined above. In June2001, in the four participating secondary schools, pupils in Year 7, school staff, anda sample of parents/carers completed the amended questionnaires based on theIndex for Inclusion materials. (See Appendix 1 for the pupil questionnaire. Theparent/carer and school staff questionnaires had the same questions rephrased tomake them appropriate for their readers.) The questionnaires therefore investigatedthe views of the participants near the end of the academic year.
For each statement, the answers of the pupils on the SEN register were comparedto the answers of the non-SEN pupils (using a one-way unrelated Analysis ofVariance). Statements in which the SEN pupils gave significantly less favourableanswers than the other pupils were highlighted. These were used to identify aspectsof school life in which the SEN pupils had a less inclusive experience than the otherpupils in the school.
A working party, consisting of members of the school staff, the District SeniorEducational Psychologist and, in three of the Districts, a senior teacher from the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
56 P. Hodson et al.
local school for pupils with moderate learning difficulties, guided the project in eachschool. The working party was able to formulate their own interventions in thearea(s) identified by the questionnaire analysis to help pupils on the SEN registerhave a more positive experience at school.
Working parties were able to decide on any further data collection that would beuseful for their specific intervention and that would be feasible to collect in theirschool. Additional data was therefore available from some schools in the project. Forexample, School A collected structured interview and observational data for specificSEN pupils. School D collected questionnaire data on the self-esteem and socialskills of pupils. This data is not reported in this paper.
Interventions were then set up for the following academic year (2001–2002) to tryto address some of the areas in which the pupils on the SEN register had reportedhaving the most different experiences in the school setting from pupils not on theSEN register.
In July 2002, following the implementation of the interventions, the current Year7 pupils, the school staff, and a sample of parents/carers completed the question-naires. The results obtained in summer 2002 were then compared to the resultsobtained in summer 2001. The data was analysed using a one-way unrelatedANOVA.
Outcomes
Initial Results from the Questionnaires in June 2001
Different schools were able to collect different levels of data. School A and School Bhad asked all their non-SEN register pupils to complete the questionnaires. SchoolsC and D preferred to use a sample. Schools A, C, and D collected the views of theparents/carers of pupils on the SEN register only. School B was committed toaccessing the views of both parents/carers of pupils on the SEN register and a sampleof parents/carers of the other pupils.
Issues Identified
The statements identified where the Year 7 pupils on the SEN register had statisti-cally significantly less positive experiences than other Year 7 pupils in the schools inSummer 2001 are summarised in Table 1.
For School A and School D the most significantly different responses betweenthe pupils on the SEN register and the other pupils were in social areas. However,both these schools also had differences between SEN and non-SEN pupils in theirconfidence in their ability to do the work set. School C had differences in theextent to which the pupils with SEN felt supported in lessons and in their rating ofgeneral happiness.
School B, on the basis of the questionnaire statement analysis, did not have anyareas in which the SEN register pupils reported a significantly less positive response
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 57
Table 1. Questionnaire statements where pupils on the SEN register gave less positive responses than the other pupils in 2001
School Statements from QuestionnaireSignificance Level
School ANon-SEN register pupilsN = 104SEN register pupilsN = 32
I have friends I can spend break and lunchtimes with p<0.01
There are plenty of clubs I can join before, during and after school
p<0.05
I have made progress since starting at this school p<0.05I can do the homework that is set for me p<0.05
School BNon-SEN register pupilsN = 159SEN register pupilsN = 40
There were no statements in which the answers of the SEN register pupils were significantly different to the answers from the non-SEN pupils. However, in the section at the end of the questionnaire, comments made by some of the pupils on the SEN register raised concerns that there was nowhere the pupils could go that was supervised and felt safe at lunchtimes. Analysis of graphical representation of the answers of the two groups of pupils identified the following two statements as of particular concern for the pupils on the SEN register:There is somewhere for me to go if I need help with my work.There is somewhere for me to go if I am worried about something.
School CNon-SEN register sampleN = 40SEN register sampleN = 25
I am happy at this school p<0.01
Staff at this school help all the students, not just the most able to do their best
p<0.05
School DNon-SEN register sampleN = 30SEN register sampleN= 30
Bullying is a problem for me at this school p<0.01
I have friends I can spend break and lunchtimes with p<0.01I can do the work that is set for me p<0.05
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
58 P. Hodson et al.
than the non-SEN pupils. Comments on the staff questionnaire in School D identi-fied a need for more information on Special Educational Needs issues.
Interventions
Interventions were implemented from September 2001 onwards. In general moneywas allocated to: funding staff to run the interventions, supply cover for senior staffto manage the initiatives, and training of staff and pupils. In some schools equip-ment and resources were purchased. The DSEPs also used a small amount of thebudget to finance the data analysis and advice from the university. In summary themain interventions in the four schools are shown in Table 2.
Post-Intervention Outcomes
Following the interventions, the results, in relation to the questionnaire responses,are summarised in Tables 3 through to 6.
Discussion
This study yielded a wealth of data. The main findings can be summarised asfollows:
● At the start of the study, three of the four schools had significant differences inthe responses of the pupils on the SEN register compared to the responses of thepupils not on the SEN register. In two of the schools the most significantly
Table 2. Main interventions in the four schools
School A School B School C School D
● Lunchtime club tolearn social skills,initially for identi-fied pupils.
● Training for Learn-ing Support Assis-tants (LSAs).
● Training for andsetting up of peermentoring system.
● Drama workshopsessions, to raiseissues of friendshipand bullying for allYear 7 pupils.
● Lunchtime club tolearn social skillsand to receivesupport with home-work.
● Training for LSAs.
● Club at lunchtimeto support thecompletion ofhomework but alsoproviding othereducationalresources and self-esteem activities.
● Circle time sessionsfor some SENregister pupils.
● Three groups forpupils on the SENregister to developskills in: raisingself-esteem, devel-oping social skills,managing anger.
● LSA time tosupport issuesraised in groupwork, includingbullying issues.
● Staff training inADHD, Dyslexia,Dyspraxia andAutistic SpectrumDisorders.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 59
different responses related to the less positive social experience of the SEN regis-ter pupils.
● By July 2002, the difference between the non-SEN pupils’ responses and the lesspositive responses of the pupils on the SEN register had decreased in all threeschools in the areas targeted for intervention. In the fourth school (where noinitial statistical difference between the two groups had been found), in July 2002the pupils on the SEN register were significantly more positive in the area targetedthan the pupils on the SEN register in July 2001 had been.
● Areas where SEN register pupils had reported a less positive response than otherpupils in summer 2001, but which were not targeted for intervention, remainedissues in the following year, when the Year 7 pupils with SEN again reported lesspositive responses than the other Year 7 pupils.
Table 3. Differences between SEN pupils’ and other pupils’ responses in 2001 compared to 2002
Summer 2001Statements Where Pupils on the SEN Register Gave Significantly Less Positive Responses Than the Other Pupils
Summer 2002Significant Difference between SEN and other pupils Eliminated?
School ANon-SEN register pupils N = 104SEN register pupils N = 32
Non-SEN register pupils N = 114SEN register pupils N = 32
I have friends I can spend break and lunchtimes with √There are plenty of clubs I can join before, during and after school
√
I have made progress since starting at this school Difference remaining at p<0.05 levelI can do the homework that is set for me Difference remaining at p<0.05 level
School BNon-SEN register pupils n = 159SEN register pupils n = 40
Non-SEN register pupils n = 190SEN register pupils n = 35
No statistically significant difference on any statements
School CNon-SEN register sample N = 40SEN register sample N = 25
Non-SEN register sample N = 20SEN register sample N = 25
I am happy at this school Significance of the difference reduced from the p<0.01 to p<0.05
Staff at this school help all the students, not just the most able to do their best
Difference remaining at p<0.05 level
School DNon-SEN register sample N = 30SEN register sample N = 30
Non-SEN register sample N = 30SEN register sample N = 30
Bullying is a problem for me at this school √I have friends I can spend break and lunchtimes with √I can do the work that is set for me Difference remaining at p<0.05 level
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
60 P. Hodson et al.
Table 4. Questionnaire statements where there was a difference in SEN pupils’ responses in 2001 compared to 2002
Statement More positive responses from SEN Pupils in 2002 compared to 2001?
School ANo differences found
School BB There are plenty of clubs I can join before, during and after schoolI can do the work that is set for meThere is somewhere for me to go if I need help with my work
√ (p<0.01)
√ (p<0.01)√ (p<0.01)
School CI am happy with the way the school deals with my behaviour X - more negatively (p<0.05)
School DBullying is a problem for me at this schoolThere is somewhere for me to go if I need help with my work
√ (p<0.01)√ (p<0.05)
Table 5. Questionnaire statements where there was a difference in non-SEN pupils’ responses in 2001 compared to 2002
Statement More positive responses from non-SEN register Pupils in 2002 compared to 2001?
School ABullying is a problem for me at this school √ (p<0.01)There are plenty of clubs I can join before, during and after school X (p<0.05)
More non-SEN register pupils disagreed
School BI am happy at this school √(p<0.05)Staff help all the pupils not just the most able to do their best √ (p<0.05)I have made progress since starting at this school √ (p<0.05)
School CI am happy at this school √ (p<0.05)I am happy with the way that the school deals with my behaviour √ (p<0.05)I have made progress since starting this school √ (p<0.05)
School DStaff help all the pupils not just the most able to do their best √ (p<0.05)I am happy with the way that the school deals with my behaviour √ (p<0.05)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 61
Table 6. Questionnaire statements where there was a difference in parents’/carers’/school staff responses in 2001 compared to 2002
Questionnaire StatementMore positive response in 2002 compared to 2001?
School AParents of SEN register pupils2001 N = 62002 N =14
My child has somewhere to go if they are worried about something
Parents were less positive in 2002(p<0.05)
Teachers/LSAs2001 N = 202002 N = 19
No significant differences between 2002 and 2001
School BSample of Year 7 Parents2001 N = 422002 N = 66
The school keeps me well informed about how my child is doingIf I am concerned about my child’s progress at school I know who to contact
√ (p<0.05)
√ (p<0.05)
Teachers2001 N = 152002 N = 19
Within this locality this is a good school for all pupils
√ (p<0.05)
School CParents of SEN register pupils2001 N = 112002 N = 10
No significant differences between 2002 and 2001
Teachers/LSAs2001 N = 322002 N = 22
If a parent is concerned about their child’s progress at school they know who to contact.I am happy with the schools’ behaviour policyStaff encourage all students, not just the most able to do their best
√ (p<0.05)
√ (p<0.05)
√ (p<0.05)
School DParents of SEN register pupils2001 N = 132002 N = 15
Bullying is a problem for my child at this schoolMy child has friends with whom to spend break and lunchtimes
√ (p<0.05)
√ (p<0.05)
Teachers2001 N = 242002 N = 10
No significant differences between 2002 and 2001
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
62 P. Hodson et al.
● Results were mixed in terms of change in the perceptions of parents/carers andteachers. The number of teachers completing the questionnaires was quite low.Positive results were achieved with the parents/carers in Schools B and D.
Specific issues are discussed in more detail below in the following sections.
Use of the Questionnaires
All staff in the four working parties in the schools felt that the statements identifiedby the questionnaires as of concern in their school had validity and were consistentwith their experiences in their school. The comment section at the end of each ques-tionnaire generated important information. Some comments in the initial question-naire, such as whole school bullying concerns and issues about the toilet facilitieswere followed up immediately.
The comments recorded in School C were essential in identifying important issuesrelating to the statement identified for intervention, “I am happy at this school”.Comments in this school regularly included reported difficulties during the lunchbreak. Concerns raised in the parents’/carers’ returns in July 2002 in School A led tochanges being made in the school Special Needs Policy.
Findings from Initial Questionnaires
The findings of the less positive responses of the pupils on the SEN register in rela-tion to friendship and bullying in particular were consistent with other researchfindings. For example Kelly and Norwich (1992) highlighted bullying, usually inthe form of name-calling, as a significant area of concern for pupils with moderatelearning difficulties. Frederickson and Furnham (2001) found that with moderatelearning difficulties pupils were significantly less likely to be classified as popularthan their mainstream classmates.
In three of the schools, concerns were raised in statements about curriculumissues (Items 10, 15, 16 and 19). Again these concerns are consistent with the find-ings of Kelly and Norwich (1992) and with Wise (1999). Interventions were not putin place to address these issues, since the priorities were agreed to be social in thefirst instance. However, significantly these issues remained of concern for the Year 7pupils in the schools in the following year.
Interventions
The choice of a lunchtime club as one of the interventions in three schools (albeitwith different briefs and organisations) was unexpected. However, all three schoolshad comments relating to break and lunchtimes included in the comments section,which had guided the choice of these interventions. It is important to note that, inorder to avoid working against the principles of inclusion, the clubs were available toall pupils or were available to specific pupils for a limited number of days each week.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 63
By the end of the year, in all three schools, the clubs were open to any pupil whowished to apply to attend.
Norwich et al. (2001) in their report on the secondary school using parts of theIndex for Inclusion materials commented on a similar development. In this school alunchtime learning support centre had expanded to include a wide range of informalactivities and was well used by all pupils.
There was tremendous commitment and creativity in the schools to achieve realsocial progress for the pupils attending the clubs. Detailed accounts from the schoolsare available in county publications (Staffordshire, 2002, 2003).
The District Senior Educational Psychologist delivered the small group work inSchool D. However, the principles of the work were adopted for future circle-timework in the school to be delivered by school staff. Again an intervention designed forspecific pupils was to be extended to all pupils for the following year.
The peer mentoring support system in School A was only partially in operation bythe time of the project evaluation. At this stage, the training of the teachers involvedand the initial pupil awareness raising sessions had been undertaken. Full implemen-tation was scheduled for September 2002 when the initiative would be available forall pupils in Year 7.
Post Intervention Outcomes
In the three schools where an initial difference between the responses of the SENregister pupils and the other pupils had been identified, the difference between theless positive responses of the pupils on the SEN register and the other pupils foritems targeted by the interventions had been reduced. On the other hand, differ-ences between the two groups of pupils, on items not targeted by an intervention,remained in the following year group of Year 7 pupils. At least three of the fivepositive changes in the responses of the SEN pupils in Schools B and D betweenSummer 2001 and Summer 2002 related directly to the interventions put in place atthese schools.
Less successful aspects of the projects were the incomplete responses from staffto the questionnaires and the lack of change in the responses of the school stafffollowing the interventions. School B was the only school that did achieve positivemovement in this area, although no intervention had been put in to target teacherperceptions directly. However, in School B, the progress of the lunchtime club wasregularly updated in staff bulletins and some teachers visited the club. The lesspositive response from staff in School C in 2002 to the statement “Staff encourageall students, not just the most able, to do their best”, could reflect a greater aware-ness of the issues raised and therefore less satisfaction with the status quo in theschool.
Data from parents showed significant positive change in School B and School D.In school D the only two statements to show a change from 2001 and 2002 for theparents were the two questions targeted by the project. In School A significantlymore parents returned the questionnaire in 2002.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
64 P. Hodson et al.
General Issues
Much data was generated by the projects. It is acknowledged that further analysis ofthe available data and the collection of further data might generate additional orclearer conclusions. However, the level of analysis undertaken has enabled all fourschools to review their practice, use problem-solving approaches and move forward.Further analysis would not necessarily be cost effective within the applied settings inwhich the authors work.
This project focused specifically on inclusion issues for Year 7 pupils on the SENregister. It is important to acknowledge therefore that, although the self reviewprocess may have helped the schools to think about inclusion and the need to workto remove barriers to enable all their pupils to learn, further thought would need tobe given to wider inclusion issues in the schools.
Implications for Educational Psychologists
● This is the type of work that many Educational Psychologists anticipate undertak-ing after initial training courses and are sometimes disappointed when the oppor-tunities are not available. Working with schools in this way was both fascinatingand stimulating: all the DSEPs were pleased that they had been involved in amajor Education Authority project. Educational Psychologists are in a well-placedprofession to initiate and co-ordinate a project of this type.
● However, the reality involved a tremendous amount of work. The DSEPs neededto attend regular meetings in the schools, agree co-ordination issues with eachother, set up budget arrangements, discuss the data analysis and its implicationsand update senior education officers regarding the progress of the project and itsfindings. In the future, the DSEPs would be better able to predict and plan for theamount of time required.
● Liaison with colleagues in the SEN department was achieved successfully.However, liaison with colleagues in school effectiveness/school improvementsections was not prioritised, so that inclusion could have been misconstrued as aSEN0-only issue.
● The DSEPs did not have experience of managing large project budgets. In actual-ity, not all the budget was spent. Had more DSEPs’ time been available thebudget probably could have been shared effectively between a slightly largernumber of schools.
● The potential for useful data collection and analysis was vast. The DSEPs had notdiscussed the implications of the amount of data collection with schools in detailbefore the project started. In the event different schools were prepared to collectdifferent levels of data.
● The implications, in a countywide project, of some of the self-review data beingsensitive, had not been considered. One school, following the analysis of the firstquestionnaires, withdrew from the project, because the school wanted to resolvethe issues raised internally.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 65
● As noted above, although the school teams involved in the project were enthusias-tic and committed, there were varying levels of commitment from school seniormanagers and other teaching staff.
Comments from Participating Schools
● Schools welcomed the opportunity to participate in a project of this type. Inparticular they appreciated the opportunity to explore the effectiveness of inter-ventions before self-funding them.
● Teachers involved in the social skills initiatives were surprised by the very lowlevel of social skills in some of their Year 7 pupils.
Conclusions
The project aimed to help high schools to be more inclusive of their pupils withspecial educational needs. This study suggested that, when considering inclusion,schools need to think, in particular, about the social experience within the school.Relatively simple interventions in areas of concern for SEN pupils made a significantdifference. On the other hand, concerns not targeted by the interventions remainedconcerns for pupils on the SEN register in the following year.
As the year progressed and the benefits of the interventions became clearer in allfour schools, the interventions were extended to include a much wider range ofpupils, generally all Year 7 pupils, in the true spirit of inclusion. Whilst staff workingdirectly in the projects were tremendously committed to inclusion, involving all theschool staff in the projects remained a challenge. However, the aims of the projectwere achieved in the longer term and all four schools funded aspects of the projectinitiatives into the future.
Educational Psychologists were perceived as key professionals to initiate and co-ordinate projects of this type.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the help of Peter Davies, Ph.D., at Staffordshire University for hisadvice regarding design and the statistical analysis for the project. We also acknowl-edge his suggestions for more detailed analyses, which we were not able to carry outat this stage.
References
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for inclusion.Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Department for Education and Skills. (2001a). Inclusive schooling: children with special educationalneeds. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills. (2001b). Special educational needs code of practice. London:Department for Education and Skills.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
66 P. Hodson et al.
Durkin, C. (2000). Transition: The child’s perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 17(1),64–75.
Frederickson, N. L., & Furnham, A. F. (2001). The long-term stability of sociometric statusclassification: A longitudinal study of included pupils who have moderate learning difficultiesand their mainstream peers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(5), 581–592.
Garner, M., & Bate, D. (1999). A review of special education provision in Staffordshire. Staffordshire:Staffordshire County Council.
Kelly, N., & Norwich, B. (1992). Children’s perspectives on inclusion. University of Exeter. Report tothe Nuffield Foundation. Unpublished.
MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves. Aylesbury: Routledge/Falmer.Norwich, B., Goodchild, L., & Lloyd, S. (2001). Some aspects of the inclusion index in operation.
Support for Learning, 16(4), 156–161.Staffordshire. (2002). All schools are special! 2 Staffordshire County Council.Staffordshire. (2003). SEN Newsletter.Spring Staffordshire County Council.Wise, S. (1999). Improving success in the mainstream setting for pupils with emotional and behav-
ioural difficulties. Pastoral Care,September, 14–20.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Inclusiveness of Year 7 Pupils with SEN 67
Appendix. Questionnaire for Year 7 Pupils who entered school in 2000
This is your chance to make your own comments if you wishThe things I would most like to change are:
Thank you for your time and help completing this questionnaire.
Agree Sometimes Not Often Disagree
1 This is a good school2 The information I was given when I first came to the school in September 2000 was helpful3 The school lets me know how I am doing4 I can go to the staff when I need help5 I am confident that school staff will listen to my views6 I am happy at this school7 Bullying is a problem for me at this school8 I am happy with the way the school deals with bullying9 The staff understand me10 Staff at this school help all students, not just the most able, to do their best11 I am happy with the way the school deals with my behaviour12 I am happy with the school’s behaviour policy13 I have friends I can spend break and lunch times with14 There are plenty of clubs I can join before, during and after school15 I can do the work that is set for me16 I have made progress since starting at this school17 There is somewhere for me to go if I need help with my work18 There is somewhere for me to go if I am worried about something19 I can do the homework that is set for me
123
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
exas
Lib
rari
es]
at 2
1:04
26
Nov
embe
r 20
14
