educational psych- SEND, inclusion and bullying

Question 1

code of practice [DfE,DoH 2015]

Answer 1

Children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for them.

Question 2

4 broad areas of need regarding SEND

Answer 2

1. communication and interaction
2. cognition and learning
3. social, emotional and mental health difficulties
4. Sensory and/or physical needs → eg sensory overstimulation, hearing loss

Question 3

previous response to SEND

Answer 3

• School Action (using school’s existing resources)
• School Action Plus (involving external services such as educational psychologists)
• Statutory assessment, possibly giving rise to a ‘statement’

Question 4

graduated response to SEND [since 2015]

Answer 4

• Assess
• Plan
• Do
• Review

Question 5

waves of intervention for SEND

Answer 5

• Universal provision → support available in a school for everyone eg having 5-10mins mindfulness at the start of every day
• Additional support (often in small groups)
• Intensive individual support → specific to one Childs need

Individual Education Plan for children allows educators to record needs, targets, interventions, and progress outside of standard progress indicators

Question 6

role of education psychologist

Answer 6

• Can range from:
  
  • Individual standardised assessment of an individual pupil’s learning difficulties to
  • Consultation with staff within a school about support provided to children in care to
  • Development of an authority-wide approach to anti-bullying
• Crucial bridge between:
  
  • academic psychological research
  and
  • policy and practice within and across educational settings

Question 7

what is inclusion

Answer 7

• a journey away from segregation

Question 8

difference between integration and inclusion

Answer 8

• Integration involves the school in a process of assimilation: the individual needs to change
• Inclusion involves the school in a process of accommodation: the school needs to change

Question 9

the education act [1996]

Answer 9

• Conditions for educating children with SEN in mainstream (1996):-
  
  • Parental wishes
  • The children receiving the special educational provision which their learning difficulties call for
  • The provision of efficient education for the children with whom the children with SEN will be educated
  • The efficient use of resources

Question 10

the education act [2001]

Answer 10

• must be educated in mainstream unless:-
  
  • Incompatible with wishes of parent
  • Incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children

Question 11

evidence for inclusion: comparative studies

Answer 11

• compares integrated with segregated provision
  
  • Consistently find no evidence that segregated placements promoted either academic or social progress compared to mainstream
    
    • What is the value of segregated if not better?
• BUT…
  
  • Children not matched for things like behaviour problems or academic achievement
  • Differences in curriculum not accounted for
  • Widely differing definitions of ‘integration’
• Lindsay (2007): of 1% of studies that addressed efficacy issues, inclusion has marginally positive impact
• Ofsted (2006): mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision performed best
  
  • Most important factor is quality of provision rather than type

Question 12

Efficient education of mainstream pupils

Dyson et al. [2004]

Answer 12

• Used info from UK National Pupil Database
• No relationship between inclusion and attainment
• Attainment significantly associated with SES, ethnicity, gender and first language

Question 13

Efficient education of mainstream pupils

Kalambouka et al. (2005

Answer 13

• Systematic review of SEND inclusion evaluation studies
• Overall, neutral impact of inclusion on academic and/or social outcomes for non-SEND pupils
• 23% actually had positive impact, especially on academic outcomes
• Positive impact linked to contexts where the support offered to pupils with SEND well managed (most schools demonstrated ‘minimum effort inclusion’)

Question 14

integration vs. inclusion: socialisation factors

study

Answer 14

Stinson et al. (1996)

• 220 hearing-impaired 16- to 18-year-olds in high schools with varying degrees of integration into mainstream classes
• QUANTITY OF INTERACTION: participants generally reported more peer-participation with HI than H peers, but this was reversed among those with the most mainstreamed classes
• SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF INTERACTION: students who were in mainstream classes often were especially likely to report more emotional security with HI than H peers
  
  • the oldest students who were frequently mainstreamed perceived themselves to be less socially competent in general than those who were mainstreamed infrequently

Question 15

SEND-to-non-SEND peer relationships

Answer 15

Non-SEND pupils more tolerant of (Frederickson & Furnham, 2004) and generous to SEND included children (Frederickson & Simmonds, 2008)

BUT…

‘Although there is undeniable warmth between the children, most of the comments and non-verbal interactions reflect a helper–helpee relationship, not a reciprocal friendship’ - van der Klift and Kunc (2002, p22)

Question 16

frames of friendship [Meyer et al., 1998]

Answer 16

1. Ghosts and guests
2. The inclusion child / different friend
3. “I’ll help”
4. Just another child
5. Regular friend
6. Best friend

Question 17

peer preparation

SEND

Answer 17

• Juvonen and Weiner [1993]: application of attribution theory
• attritibted responsibility moderates the impact of ‘deviant’ characteristics [eg aggression vs. shyness]
• importance of eduction about needs of SEND children who are less obviously ‘disabled’ [e.g., cerebral palsy, ADHD]

Question 18

social information-processing [Crick & Dodge, 1994]

Answer 18

• Can account for various differences in social adjustment
• Biases in different stages observed in children with mental health issues and behavioural problems
• ‘Data base’ explains entrenchment

Question 19

biases in info processing

Answer 19

• encoding and interpreattion of cues
  anxiety disorders <-> hypervigiliance to threat

conduct problems <-> hostile attribution bias

Question 20

the influence of families

Answer 20

• Families can exacerbate cognitive biases (Barrett et al., 1996)non-clinic comparison = children without diagnosed disorders
• Percentage of anxious children selecting avoidant solutions
  
  • 30% before family discussion (17.3% in non-clinic comparison)
  • 68% after family discussion (5.7% in non-clinic comparison)
• Percentage of ODD children selecting aggressive solutions
  
  • 35% before family discussion (5.7% in non-clinic comparison)
  • 80% after family discussion (0.0% in non-clinic comparison)

Question 21

theory of mind and peer relations

Answer 21

• longitudinal study of children’s theory of mind and peer relationships [Caputi, Lecce, Pagnin & Banerjee, 2012]
• 70 children followed from age 5-7

early ToM leads to:
* more proscoial behaviour [this also leads to lower peer rejection]
* lower peer rejection+greater peer acceptance

Question 22

what is bullying

Answer 22

Olweus (2013)

• Three key criteria in the definition of bullying
  
  • imbalance in strength, asymmetric power relationship
  • intentional aggressive behaviour/harm-doing
  • carried out repeatedly and over time
• Both direct (physical) and indirect (relational) forms
  
  • cyberbullying, via mobile phone and internet
    
    • contrasting views on how distinctive this is from traditional bullying(see Olweus, 2012, and other papers in 2012 EJDP special issue )

Question 23

bullies: social skills deficits

Answer 23

Research on social information-processing characteristics of aggressive children (e.g., Crick & Dodge)

Sutton et al. (1999)

• 193 children aged 7-10 years
• Participant Role Scale (nominations for 21 items to identify bully,assistant, reinforcer, defender, outsider, victim)
• Cognitive and Emotion theory of mind stories
• Bully status associated with better performance on the social cognitionstories

Question 24

bullies: motivational factors

Answer 24

• Goals play an important role in children’s response to social situations (Crick & Dodge, 1994)
  
  • e.g., importance of ‘status goals’ for bullies (Sijtsema et al.,2009)
  • e.g., distinctions between goals focused on assertiveness vs.submissiveness, concern about others, concern aboutrelationships etc. explain variance in bullying scores (Smalley& Banerjee, 2014)

Question 25

Victims; early evidence of victimisation

Answer 25

Crick et al. (1999)

• 129 children aged 3 to 5 years
• teacher-rated peer victimization, including
  
  • relational: e.g., “This child gets left out of the group when someone is mad at them or wants to get back at them”
  • physical: e.g., “This child gets pushed or shoved by peers”
• gender differences:
  
  • girls significantly more relationally victimized than boys
  • boys significantly more physically victimized than girls
• victimization associated with internalizing difficulties and peer rejection

Question 26

evidence for chronic victimisation

Answer 26

Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)

• longitudinal analysis
• 200 5-year-olds interviewed in Autumn and Spring
• 4-item self-report of peer victimization
  
  • Does anyone in your class ever:
    
    • pick on you at school?
    • hit you at school?
    • say mean things to you at school?
    • say bad things about you to other kids at school?
• approx 20% reported victimization at each timepoint, but only 8% were victimized at both timepoints
• Autumn victimization predicted increases in loneliness and school avoidance

Question 27

victims; the power of friendship

Answer 27

Hodges et al. (1999)

• friendship protects against an ‘escalating cycle of peer victimization’
• 393 children aged approx 10 years
• longitudinal analysis
• internalizing and externalizing characteristics do predict changes in victimization
  
  • BUT having a reciprocated best friendship predicted decrease in victimization
  • AND the relation between internalizing characteristics and victimization was eliminated among children who said they had a best friend who was high on protection (e.g., “My friend would stick up for me if another kid was causing me trouble”)
• Victimization predicted increases in internalizing/externalizing problems, BUT only for children without a reciprocated best friendship

Question 28

peer involvemnet in bullying

Answer 28

O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig (1999)

• Self-report, peer nomination, and teacher nomination used to identify focal primary school children: bullies, victims, bully/victims, and comparison group
• 120 hours of video of playground behaviour over 3 years
• 185 bullying episodes; 99 involved a peer group; 53 with sufficient sound/picture quality
  
  • **active reinforcement by joining in – 20.7%
  • passive reinforcement by watching without joining in – 53.9%
  • intervention to support victim – 25.4%**
  • age and gender differences

Question 29

kindness the key ?

Answer 29

• Performing random acts of kindness boosts subjective well-being(Curry et al., 2018)
• This effect is not moderated by demographic background – it worksfor everyone!
• Doesn’t need to be groundbreaking:

Question 30

the broader school context

Answer 30

• Ofsted (2012) report: No place for bullying
• Major emphasis on school culture and ethos, fostering of empathy and collective responsibility in pupils and staff
• Challenges of working with the wider community

Question 31

prevention and intervention

Answer 31

• Numerous strategies at multiple levels of intervention (Thompson & Smith, 2011)
• Direct sanctions vs. restorative approaches
• Whole-school approaches
  
  • PSHE curriculum
  • Social and Emotional Learning programmes (e.g., SEAL in the UK)
  • Parent/carer involvement
  • Adult modelling
• Peer support schemes (see Cowie & Smith, 2009)
  
  • Buddy schemes
  • Circle of Friends
  • Peer mediation
  • Peer mentoring
  • Cybermentoring – e.g., work of the Beatbullying charity

Question 32

the role of eductaional psychology

Answer 32

• Salmivalli (2001): “not all interventions are effective in every situationand for everyone”
• So… educational psychology must draw on knowledge andunderstanding regarding:
  
  • psychological processes relating to the individuals involved (e.g., cognition,motivation, social behaviour)
  • antecedents of those processes (e.g., parent-child interaction patterns)
  • the peer context of bullying (e.g., bystanders) and of intervention (e.g., peer support)
  • wider organisational and community-level factors (e.g., school ethos and partnership between parents and schools)