This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University ofHuddersfield]On: 04 October 2014, At: 18:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

School Refusal and Aspects ofLanguageBarrie Wade aa Faculty of Education , University of BirminghamPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Barrie Wade (1979) School Refusal and Aspects of Language,Educational Review, 31:1, 19-26, DOI: 10.1080/0013191790310103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191790310103

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 warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Educational Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1979

School Refusal and Aspects of Language

BARRIE WADE, Faculty of Education, University of Birmingham

ABSTRACT In the context of the Warnock Report the literature on school refusal isexamined and some of its emphases and assumptions are highlighted. It is suggested thatin both normal and special schools in addition to exploring the psychological backgroundof pupils, attention needs to be given to the curriculum, to teachers' attitudes to languageand to the use of language in learning.

The teacher concerned with pupils in both normal and special schools can hardlyafford to be unaware of language in use and of its effects. He is in the business of com-municating ideas through the referential meanings of words when he seeks to explain'prime factors' or 'monasteries' or 'contours' to his pupils. Through language, though,he is constantly communicating more than ideas. By his choice of words and hisintonation, for example, he communicates attitudes. In a Geography lesson, say, pupilsconsidering the bringing of Kepone toxic waste from the USA to be processed inPontypool will receive very different messages according to whether the teacherdescribes the factory as 'a chemical dustbin' or 'an advance in technology'. Languagetherefore expresses a point of view.

At an institutional level the same concern for language must operate.Under the general umbrella of 'specific learning difficulties', shelter many different

terms for categories which require examination and analysis. I propose to examine hereas an example just one of these, 'school phobia', and to suggest that, as teachers, weneed to be aware of the assumptions underlying such terms as they are used in theliterature and of the implications of the research and the teaching models that thesedescriptions generate. I will argue also that an awareness of how language operatesand facilitates learning is indispensable at classroom level, although traditionally theteacher has been presented with more guidance from therapists and psychologiststhan from linguists, especially socio-linguists. I will not argue against an emphasis on'treatment' except where such notions deflect the teacher from proper concerns aboutcurriculum.

Because the classroom teacher is likely to be influenced by what is written aboutschool phobia I will examine some of that literature in Section 1 and will suggest thatits general drift is to convey to teachers that their role is exclusively that of therapists.

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Barrie Wade

Later sections examine the awareness of language in learning that a teacher needsand which he is liable not to cultivate if he sees his role too narrowly.

1 School Phobia: Definitions, Theories and Strategies

Some writers do not present careful definitions of widely used terminology such as'school phobia'. One exception is Kelly (1973) who, following other sources, dis-tinguishes the concept from truancy (where the pupil usually truants away from home)and from withdrawal (where parents exclude the pupil from school for their ownpurposes). Kelly attempts a definition of 'school phobia' which, "most simply refersto an extreme reluctance to go to school as a result of severe anxiety and a morbiddread of the school situation" (p. 33). As users of language we respond to those termswhich confirm concepts we hold and orientations we share; it is fair to say that moreseems to have been written about the 'anxiety' aspects than about the 'situation' inKelly's definition.

Theory focuses on anxiety in the child (and in its mother) whether the source is seenas over-dependence on the mother or frustrated power urges which a permissive motherindulges. This anxiety might also be learned in the way that an unstable mother,constantly threatening to leave the family, conditions the child to stay home to see thatshe does not. The empirical papers which draw on these theories often have severefaults in design, analysis and controls. Typically we find write-ups from case notes ofpupils selected for clinical treatment and we find the theoretical prejudices of theclinicians maintained. Early papers by Hersov (1960) and Chazan (1962) emphasisethe 'psychological' cause or fault in the child and in his relationship with his parent.Hersov does not question his model despite finding that the commonest factorprecipitating 'school phobia' was transfer to secondary school or promotion toanother class. He looks for an 'underlying factor'.

Fear of separation from home was the most common underlying factor inrefusal to go to school and this was most often expressed as a concern for themother's safety. Displacement of anxiety on to a school or teacher does occurin certain cases but is by no means a universal feature (p. 144).

Chazan does not appear to notice that the classical mother-child theory is under-mined by the fact that 20 of his 33 children were in their first term of a new class orschool. However, he proceeds without theoretical underpinning to suggest remediesincluding a change of school which would reduce pressure on the child by giving himsmaller classes, shorter hours or less emphasis on academic attainment.

However, even when theory and treatment are consistent, narrow, potentiallydangerous, assumptions may be made.

Leventhal et al. (1967) argue from only two case studies that "the overreactions ofschool phobics . . . are associated with unrealistic power beliefs" and "their escapebehavior is usually reinforced by an indulgent parent". Treatment is to have a 'show-down' and return the child to school as quickly as practicable. The authors say,

It is likely that a dramatic, concrete demonstration to the child (presumablyby a speedy, even if forced, return to school) of his true position vis a vissociety and its requirements, is much more effective than any verbal ex-planations, symbolic play, or other forms of psychotherapeutic influence.

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Aspects of Language

This tough-line therapy may, of course, work with individual children (Leventhal'stwo cases, for example) but it oversimplifies a complex issue far too crudely. At best,the Leventhal remedy would be appropriate only if the causes of school phobiaindisputably lay in faults in the child and his relationship with his parent. However,the same consequences do not apply if some of the blame is shifted to the schoolsystem. Leventhal ignores this possibility and seems unaware that peer group prob-lems might also contribute, although researchers such as Maclay (1967) were statingexplicitly that children were less likely to have continuing social and psychiatricproblems if they formed good peer group relationships. The uses of language inoffering verbal explanations to the pupil and in developing his insight are minimisedby Leventhal and this seems drastically inappropriate in the case of children and ado-lescents who have learned to use language to construct their notions of reality.

Even in much more recent papers there is often a reluctance to depart, even partially,from psychologically oriented theories and to recognise the likely complexity ofcausation, Skynner (1974), for example, challenges the child-mother cause and em-phasises the "crucial role of the father", suggesting that school phobia "may berelated to the inability of the father to fulfil his potential role" (p. 2). Unfortunatelythere are only 20 children referred to in Skynner's study and these are not describedsystematically—in terms of sex, social class or intelligence, for example. We knowonly from footnotes that two were males but, for both of these, follow-up waslimited and the cases are too inadequately documented for the purposes of anyvalidation. All of the five case studies referred to are female, but Skynner does notsee any significance in this; nor does he suggest anywhere that this fact might partiallyaccount for the 'crucial importance' of the father. Skynner's main treatment tech-nique seems to be a challenge or coercion by threat of court proceedings to show thereis "someone in a position of parental authority . . . both concerned and friendly, yetprepared to use sanctions which will arouse hate and rejection if it is nevertheless inthe family's interest. . . " Again this seems a stereotype of the father's role which hasbeen inadequately explored theoretically.

The purpose, then, in briefly reviewing these commentaries on school phobia is toshow that workers in the field who read them may have their views of pupils, causa-tion and treatment shaped by the concepts and language of their writers. We havenoted disagreements, but the literature here suggests simple, often single causes andgenerally applied, although varying treatments. There is little recognition that causesmay be complex and may include social and institutional factors. There is very littlemention of curriculum or teaching methodology in this literature (which influencesworkers with maladjusted children), yet these aspects are likely to be at least asimportant as for 'normal' children and it would be dangerous for teachers to neglectthem. If the word 'treatment' conveys to the worker with maladjusted children onlynotions of clinical work in psychiatry, behaviour modification and placement of thepupil, then the role of teacher is seriously diminished. Clearly the curriculum has itseffect on pupils as does whatever happens in actual teaching. Ryan (1973) mentionsthe need for more equal cooperation between psychologists, teachers and psychiatristsand wisely offers a more complete definition of treatment: "Whatever the teacher doeswill be treating the child for good or bad . . ." (p. 225). In an article on truancyJones (1974) outlines more than 20 possible causes and includes school phobia amongthese. It is becoming apparent that it may not be easy to separate school phobia,truancy and withdrawal as in Kelly's review (Section 1). At least Kelly (1973) isexplicit about the complexity of causation:

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Barrie Wade

The therapist may need to investigate what contribution the school itself ismaking to the development of the school phobia and possibly initiate actionat the institutional or community level for changes in the school and itsrelationship to the community. Most, if not all, schools potentially possessstructures, practices and personnel that may cause, occasion or aggravatethe development of school phobia (p. 40).

2 Language, Teaching and the Curriculum

Although Kelly is one of the people who have drawn attention to factors within theschool which might cause maladjustment, he still assumes that the therapist is theperson to initiate change and this must, to those sceptical of the role of outsideagencies in effecting institutional and curricular changes, seem a naive view. Certainlyit undervalues the part which individual teachers can play in making changes, inimproving their performance and in encouraging learning. Although Kelly writes ofnormal schools his criticism should be extended to include even those schools whichmake special provision for maladjusted children. Without necessarily dependingupon behaviour modification, for example, a teacher initiates change by demon-strating concern and by being a supportive, understanding figure. He can counseleffectively without attempting to work as a clinician.

At this point it will be useful to show briefly why the teacher needs an awareness ofwhat language is and does in learning. Space will not allow a fuller treatment of thiscomplex area and the reader is referred elsewhere (e.g. Britton, 1972; Wilkinson, 1971;HMSO, 1975; Wade, 1978). We can consider language from the point of view of thelearner and also from the point of view of the teacher, although in learning situationsthese two are, of course, interrelated.

The following sections use examples of teacher/pupil interactions to illustrate someof the kinds of awareness about language and learning that the teacher needs andparticularly:

(1) what the pupil can do with language and what purposes he uses language for,(2) what opportunities the pupil has to use language in the classroom and to share

with the teacher in the organising and shaping of knowledge,(3) how the teacher's own use of language can facilitate or impede learning.

3 Language and the Learner

Language is crucial to learning because it is an important medium through whichlearning takes place. In fact, it has been argued (e.g. Bruner et ah, 1966) that languageis necessary to scale to the higher levels of thinking. The learner is not merely apassive receiver of language in the process of communication of information from histeacher. In addition to representing the world (as he sees it) to others, he needs alsoto make that representation to himself. With language he is able to order his experi-ences and to reflect on them. Language is an important tool in making generalisations(as can be seen most simply in hierarchies such as Rover—Alsatian—dog—verte-brate), in problem-solving and in setting up hypotheses. If the learner is to make newinformation his own he must match it with what he presently knows and may need toreformulate that information in his own words.

A summary like this, inevitably crude, at least draws attention to some functions oflanguage for the learner. It has been convincingly argued (Halliday, 1969) that

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Aspects of Language

children intuitively use a wider range of language functions than adults may allow inclassrooms, while Joan Tough (e.g. 1974) suggests that, although some children mayhave developed the ability to secure attention and assert themselves in the face ofothers' needs, they may not often use language for such purposes as predicting,projecting through the imagination or collaborating with others.

Let us illustrate from the example of 'Gerry' a 13-year-old pupil in a residentialschool for maladjusted children. The material is part of a larger study of languagefunctions and opportunities in progress. This extract of transcript comes from a20-minute recording made at lunch time and comes when Gerry is queuing withother boys before going to the table:

Extract AGerry: you/get off FarmerFarmer: I'm hungry you seeGerry: next side pleaseFred: I've seen somebody do that and they picked him right up/no/bend

downGerry: shurrupFred: they took hold of his hands and pulled it underneath his legs

right/then heSam: rightGerry: shurrup/SamFarmer: in the queue SamsonFred: pull/thro' your legsGerry: youFarmer: both of themGerry: oy/come hereSam: yeah (confusion)Gerry: pack it inSam: I'll fucking kill you in a minuteFarmer: what is itGerry: don't touch/knock off/that is some'at I'm making/I'm trying to make

a radio and if/if you keep pulling my wires I won't be able to doit/don't/don't touch it/let it go

Sam: it's licoriceGerry: it isn'tFred: just plug it into batteries/you should get some'at out of itGerry: don't touch/just/don't/mess/just/pack it in/just pack it inSam: o.k. mate

(Confusion)Gerry: sevenAdult: table three.

Gerry's command of language is adequate to maintain his ground among his peers.Although most of his utterances are short and simply constructed, he shows he canuse more complex constructions and, while he is mainly concerned to instruct, tocontrol and regulate the behaviour of others, he can also give explanations. He doesnot here show any ability to predict, but this was not demanded by the situation.Significantly his contribution to the discourse approaches 50%.

In the same week, 180 minutes of classroom discourse were recorded across five

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Barrie Wade

curriculum subjects in which Gerry participated with his peers. The following extractcomes near the beginning of a lesson after the teacher has read Timothy Winters, apoem by Charles Causley:

Extract BAdult: yes/well now we call this/alliteration/alliteration/Mfz of a boy you

see how he makes the 'b ' sounds come together/can anybody findme another example/yes Fred

Fred: er/his neck is darkAdult: well/yes SamSam: I don't know now/I've lost it (laughter)Adult: hush/come onRichard: oh yes here it is/And through his britches the blue winds blowAdult: good/(laughter) Gerry what's the matterGerry: it's not me sirAdult: well just listen or else you'll not know/alliteration is when con-

sonants are repeated/er close together.

If we compare this discourse with extract A above, certain features emerge. Theconversation is controlled and dominated by the adult who himself makes more thana 50% contribution to the discourse—mainly through conveying and eliciting in-formation and through regulating behaviour. Pupil contributions are mainly re-sponses to questions. What is particularly interesting about Gerry's single response isthat it is the only contribution he makes not only in this lesson, but in the entire 180minutes of recording. From this slight evidence it would appear that an adolescent (whowe have seen can use language effectively in one context) has not internalised the factthat language can be used for any of the purposes referred to at the beginning ofthis section. We do not have evidence of Gerry using language to organise histhoughts and feelings (about Timothy Winters, for example) or to make new mean-ings for himself from any of the information presented to him in class. Yet these arethe functions of language that Gerry needs practice in and which will help his learn-ing. Gerry is not being helped towards facility in language use.

4 Language and the Teacher

It could, of course, be true that Gerry's teachers give him no opportunity to uselanguage for these purposes. Further empirical evidence collected over a longer periodof time would be needed to confirm or deny this suggestion. However, there arestudies (e.g. Flanders, 1970; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) which examine the languageused by teachers and pupils in the shaping of classroom discussion and others (e.g.Barnes, 1969) which consider specific aspects such as questioning. A study such asBarnes's can also be used to gain insights into pupil/pupil interaction.

All these studies suggest that the way a teacher himself uses language crucially affectsthe possibilities for learning in classrooms. Teachers have to make split-second decisionsin the classroom which might deny opportunities for learning through discussion.Also it is easy to be critical of teachers' performance. However, there is always a placefor re-examining intentions and strategies and how these affect pupils' learning.Why, for example, in extract B above was the teacher apparently more interested inpursuing a literary convention than in exploring the meanings of a poem? Why didhe choose not to explore Fred's offering which, after all, does have the 'K' soundrepeated? Since much learning takes place through language the teacher needs to be

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Aspects of Language

well informed about language development and classroom interaction As the Bullockreport (HMSO, 1975) says, "If a teacher is to control the growth of competencehe must be able to examine the verbal interaction of a class or group in terms of anexplicit understanding of the operation of language" (p. 8). He needs also to have aclear understanding of his own use of language and how this can facilitate or impedelearning. There are implications here for the initial and in-service education ofteachers. Understanding one's own use of language is a complex business—illustratedin extract C where the Adult, enjoying an equal discourse with Graham, one ofGerry's year group, fails to respond properly to the serious question about soundwaves.

Extract CGraham: they just keep on hitting youAdult: why/why's thatGraham: they keep on hitting meAdult: do they/why do you think they do itGraham: well/because I'm new I thinkAdult: yeahGraham: you know those sound waves/they can go through that open

window can't theyAdult: oh I don't think it makes much differenceGraham: would they go through that open window or notAdult: mm/well they may not go through the stone/why/why do you

think they do keep on hitting you/is it just because you're newGraham: yeah.

5 Conclusions

There is no problem for Graham if the adult later returns to what wound waves can do.If, however, he is so concerned with 'treatment' and 'adjustment' that he signals lackof interest in the pupil's learning, then opportunities have been missed. Extract Cshows how Sections 1 and 2 above are linked to issues of language and learning andhow attitudes formed from the literature on school refusal may affect learning oppor-tunities. Perhaps some teachers in special schools believe that because they workwith small groups then language problems do not arise. However, Gerry was one ofonly eight pupils in his class. Pupils like him need help to handle a range of speechsituations perhaps more especially if they are isolated in a special school.

The point of this paper is to emphasize the need to look for the causes of maladjust-ment not only in the pupil and his psychological background, but also in his peergroup and in the school as an institution of learning. It follows that in normal andspecial schools we should give careful attention to the curriculum, to teachers' atti-tudes and to the use of language in learning. Where these have been neglected it is apity, since they are issues which, through teacher education, we can probably do mostabout.

REFERENCES

BARNES, D. (1969) Language, the Learner and the School (Harmondsworth, Penguin).BRITTON, J.N. (1972) Language and Learning (Harmondsworth, Pelican).BRUNER, J. et al. (1966) Studies in Cognitive Growth (London, J. Wiley).

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Barrie Wade

CHAZAN, M. (1962) School phobia, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, pp. 209-217.FLANDERS, N.A. (1970) Analysing Teaching Behavior (Reading, Massachussetts).HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1969) Relevant models of language, in: Wilkinson, A.M. (Ed.) Educational

Review, 22, pp. 26-37.HERSOV, L.A. (1960) Refusal to go to school, Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, pp. 137-145.HMSO (1975) A Language for Life (London, HMSO).JONES, D. (1974) Truancy, Concern, No. 14 (London, National Children's Bureau).KELLY, E.W. (1973) School phobia: a review of theory and treatment, Psychology in the Schools, X,

pp. 32-42.LEVENTHAL, T., WINEBERGER, G., STANDER, R.J. & STEARNS, R.J. (1967) Therapeutic strategies with

school phobics, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 37, pp. 64-70.MACLAY, I. (1967) Prognostic factors in child guidance practice, Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 8, pp. 207-215.RYAN, J.P. (1973) Maladjustment, in: Butcher, H.J. & Pout, H.B. (Eds) Educational Research in

Britain, 3 (University of London Press).SINCLAIR, J. MCH. & COULTHARD, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse (Oxford University

Press).SKYNNER, A.C.R. (1974) School Phobia: a reappraisal.TOUGH, J. (1974) Children's use of language, in: Wade, B. (Ed) Functions of language, Educational

Review, 26, pp. 166-179.WADE, B. (1974) Functions of language, Educational Review, 26, 3.WADE, B. (1978) Assessing oral abilities at 16+, English in Education, June.WILKINSON, A. (Ed.) (1969) The state of language, Educational Review, 22, 1.WILKINSON, A. (1971) Foundations of Language (Oxford University Press).

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 18:

12 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014