B L U E B L O C K A C T I O N R E S E A R C H 2 0 1 6 - 1 7 P E - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

B L U E B L O C K A C T I O N R E S E A R C H 2 0 1 6 - 1 7

P E T E R H O B B S , L A U R A P H I L L I P S , L I S S I E M I L L S N A O M I B R I D G E S A N D L I Z Z I E PAY N E

Our Question: Do we need to intervene differently for children with SEN compared to children with suspected attachment problems?

EEF claims that…

“Overall, it is clear from the evidence that reducing challenging behaviour in schools can have a direct and lasting effect on pupils’ learning. This is based on a number of meta-analyses based on robust studies of interventions in schools.”

However,

“One meta-analysis of an anger management intervention shows a positive effect on behaviour but an overall negative effect on learning. This implies both that careful targeting and evaluation is important, and also that it is possible to reduce problematic behaviour without improving learning outcomes ”

Theory of action:

• Context – Low socio-economic status, with 51% pupil premium (218 / 431). Our

analysis of school data shows that children with SEN and children with possible attachment problems tend to be below ARE in most subjects.

• Problem – Children’s behaviour causing disruption to learning and could not

always be resolved using school-wide behaviour management strategies.

• Learning/different thinking – We learned that children with attachment

problems may present with similar behaviours to those of children with autistic

• tendencies. Children with attachment problems may need adults to intervene

differently to meet their emotional needs.

• Innovation – Adults start to use words and phrases that are recommended, and

begin to approach challenging behaviour from a different angle.

• Change in behaviour – Children feel safer and more secure and, when they

feel this way, they do not present as many disruptive behaviours.

• Change in outcomes – Children have improved their outcomes based on

amount of work completed which would correlate with better chances of learning and retaining information.

School Priorities:

• One of the school’s priorities is developing children’s learning behaviour to improve their
• utcomes.
• It is an Academy focus to ensure that children from a disadvantaged background are in no way

hindered when it comes to school provision/academic progress. There are links between attachment problems and children from deprived areas with low socio-economic status (Minnis et al. 2013)

Hypothesis:

We believed that children with attachment problems were at risk of being misdiagnosed with other conditions. We thought that these children would present with slightly different behaviours, therefore requiring adults to intervene differently compared to children with SEN. Additionally, we were interested to find out if strategies that work best for children with attachment problems, would work best for all children.

Journals we have analysed within

• ur phase:

Key learning:

Prevalence of reactive attachment disorder in a deprived population Minnis et al. 2013

There is a correlation between attachment problems and deprived areas and that in the population studied, that 1 child in 100 could be diagnosed as having Reactive Attachment Disorder. Children may have attachment problems that appear to manifest as other disorders such as ADHD due to hyper-vigilance etc. Practitioners should be wary of ‘labelling’ children because of this, as they may be missing the underlying cause of certain behaviours.

Reactive Attachment Disorder in the General Population: A Hidden ESSENCE Disorder Pritchett et al. 2013

Journals we have analysed within our phase:

Key learning:

Clinical observations of the differences between children on the autism spectrum and those with attachment problems: the Coventry Grid Heather Moran (2010) Children can easily be misdiagnosed with autism because they seem to display some of the same traits.

Journals we have analysed within our phase:

Key learning:

Effects of Attachment Disorder on Psychosocial Development Shah 2015

Children might not recognise the motives of other people and understand that accidents can happen and that they need time, space and discussion to unpick events and their reactions. We, as practitioners need a calm and precise response so that children’s emotional needs are met before attempting to address an issue. Use words/phrases like: You worry that I won’t come back for you. You worry that I don’t like you anymore. You know you have done something wrong and you worry that I won’t like/love you anymore.

An Overview of Reactive Attachment Disorder for Teachers http://www.center4familydevelop.com/helpte achrad.htm

Eye contact Explain consequences for their behaviour clearly Reward positives Keep in class as much as possible ‘time in’ Be specific and consistent Avoid raising voices, no anger Regular communication with parents No blame on family-their life is tougher than in class

The Process:

After reading the research provided by The Coventry Grid, we were intrigued by the similarities between the behaviours of children with Autistic Spectrum Condition and children who displayed behaviours which suggest that they have attachment problems. We initially conducted several lesson studies which monitored the incidences of interruptions during lessons, focussing on key

• children. Children were grouped into either SEN or children

with behavioural difficulties.

Our Approach

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Maths lesson observation

SEND Behaviour 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

English lesson observation

SEND Behaviour

Year 3 & 4 lesson study

We then wanted to quantify the behaviour of a child with suspected attachment problems. Therefore, we set about conducting a case study which tracked this pupil’s behaviour throughout a day over the course of 13 weeks based on our PLB behaviour tracker. During week 6, adults began to use suggested strategies to address behavioural issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 week 13

break and lunch time incidents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 English MEP Break Project Lunch Science

Average Daily PLB

Term 4 Term 5

Focus child study

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10 week 12 week 13

Number of incidents where the child has had to be removed from the classroom

What we learned from our results:

Based on the PLB scores of the focus child study, we can assume that children who have attachment problems, respond better to correction that first address their emotional needs. It was very interesting to note that children with SEN did not have as many disruptive behaviours which required teacher intervention compared to children who were identified as having behavioural issues. However, there was an increase in disruptive behaviours from SEN children during maths, which is timetabled at a later time in the day, after morning break. We are interested in whether this style of behaviour management would also work for a wider population. The problem with this approach to working with children is that it is very labour intensive and requires a lot of adult time for it to have an effect.

Any questions?

Praise:

• We have made a significant difference to the outcomes of the child upon which our case study

focussed.

• We feel that we have improved our own practice as a result of our extended reading and

willingness to take a different approach.

Enhance:

• For the lesson study, Children who were identified as having behavioural difficulties, but could

it be that they had SEN needs which underpinned their behavioural issues?

• Confounding variables make it difficult to ascertain whether it was the specific intervention

which lead to an improvement in behaviour, and outcomes or whether other factors were the causal link, including factors such as change of teacher, other disruptive classmates leaving, level

• f adult support (e.g. amount of 1:1 support).
• Limited sample size. This study only looked at an in depth analysis of the behaviour tracking of
• ne child.
• Subjective nature of the data collected around behaviour scores. The data is based on children’s

and adults’ perception of behaviour against a set scale. Is this the most reliable measure of behaviour?

Respond: