This study explores the current strategies that are being employed in mainstream schools that effectively comprises of the children with behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties (BESD). The influences that this inclusion has over the remaining children of the school are inspected, and ensure some strategies to be considered by all where the experience was as positive as possible. Few schools were visited and interviewed with the supporting staff and members of the leadership team who are working directly with BESD children. A proper concern was taken to ensure the results validity with the small sample and by which the conclusions drawn were limited. A general agreement was made in schools concerning the critical challenges of children with BESD, specifically, increased stress for staff and influence on remaining children, and disruption to classes. Moreover, to fight against this everyone has efficient strategies, and the most effective is where the entire school is taken into consideration. This is employed through the leadership team who has clear vision for example inclusion and leading.
As per (Ellis, 2009), the behaviour of children in schools is often presented as a concern. According to (DfE, 2011), a serious disruption in the classroom would be caused by the children who behave badly. However, a small minority of pupils contribute to this, as acknowledged by the DfE. As reviewed from (DfE, 2011), the government’s green paper on Special Education Needs (SEN) inspected that the number of pupils with BESD have been raised to 23 percent in between 2005 and 2010. A review of the literature indicates that the attitude towards children with challenging behaviour has evolved since children with differing needs first began to be categorised. Behavioural difficulties are now seen as a special need that requires provision, in the same way as those with reading or writing difficulties might be supported. Research points towards mainstream school staff accepting the need to include these children in their schools. However, ongoing media interest in the ‘behaviour problems’ in the nation’s schools, coupled with the significant section of The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010) dedicated to improving behaviour, perhaps suggest that there are still many challenges to be faced when seeking to include a child with BESD in a mainstream primary school. Since 1989, policy and guidance has raised the alarm about the possible negative effects which behaviour is having on: ‘Pupils’ learning, recruitment and retention of teachers and the needs of society’. The DfE (2010) and the teachers have raised these concerns. The BESD pupils’ inclusion in mainstream schools may have an impact on the rest of the school community; hence the onus then rests with the leadership team to recognise this impact and seek to minimise or maximise it as appropriate. Many of the recommendations made by policies and research over the last two decades have followed similar themes, for example a focus on whole-school approaches, explicit teaching of social and emotional skills (increasingly as individualised programmes) and maintaining a balance between discipline and pastoral care (Ellis, 2009). It therefore seems unlikely that any effective new principles are about to be discovered through this research. However, all schools have their own individual contexts, and therefore school leaders will be interpreting the guidance to suit their own circumstances.
This paper strive to identify and asses the variations in practice to know about what is actually implementing in schools and to enable this what are the leadership skills that are being employed. The paper also explores how the practise is taking place currently in mainstream primary and mid schools. In support with the review of literature, the paper presents some recommendations to practitioners for adopting effective policy guidance by answering to the preceding questions: How does the inclusion of BESD children impact on other pupils and staff? What challenges does a mainstream school face today to include children with BESD? What leadership strategies are needed to effectively meet these challenges while ensuring that the impact on other pupils and staff is as positive as possible? How has the BESD children inclusion in mainstream schools evolved?
As reviewed from (DES 1978), in prior to the landmark 1978 Warnock Committee Report, children with SEN have categorized long back and they come under categories like ‘educationally sub-normal’ or ‘maladjusted’. The way for inclusion was paved by Warnock as that we know in recent days and with the introduction of the national curriculum in 1988 (DfES 1988), the entitlement of all children to a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ was made clear. Coinciding with the release of the national curriculum was the publication of the Elton Report (DfES, 1989) that responded to media interest in the alleged worsening of behaviour in England’s schools. The report concluded that poor behaviour was not a ‘new problem’, nor was it a problem limited to England and Wales. The report also focused on the importance of personal and social education in improving behaviour. The Code of Practice was launched in 1994 (DfE 1994a) that coincided with the signing of the groundbreaking ‘Salamanca Statement’, both of which continued the case for inclusion. Children with SEN should have access to regular schools and that must accommodate them in a child centred pedagogy, which is able to meet these requirements. This asserted in ‘the Salamanca Statement’. The Code of Practice agreed that as there was a ‘continuum of needs and provision’ most children would benefit from being educated in a mainstream school. With the Code of Practice in 1994 came new categories for children with SEN, among them behavioural, social and emotional development, more commonly known as behavioural, social and emotional difficulties (BESD) which encompassed the category of children known as ‘maladjusted’ in the pre-Warnock era. Although the use of the BESD category has been continued in the recent green paper on SEN (DfE, 2011), its usefulness is being questioned via the consultation process. The 1999 national curriculum review (DfES 1999) placed the responsibility for educating all children within a mainstream school firmly at the feet of the class teacher when it stated that there is ‘a statutory duty of all teachers in mainstream schools to be teachers of SEN’. However, as (Cole, 2011) recognised, this was a period during which segregation continued for BESD pupils, and in some cases increased, with the ‘rapid expansion’ of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). The Code of Practice was refreshed in 2001 (DfES 2001), and supported in 2002 with the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow 2002) that gave advice to schools on developing their inclusive policies, practices and culture. By 2004 the previous government had moved towards a more socially inclusive approach, with its Removing Barriers to Achievement publication (DfES 2004). This built on advice already given by Ofsted (2000), and to some extent by the national curriculum (DfES 1999); namely, that there are numerous issues which may affect a child’s achievement. Many of these may be caused by factors external to the child (for example, looked after child [LAC] or English as an additional language [EAL] status) and require a change in provision in order for the child to succeed. Throughout this period behaviour in schools continued to be presented as a concern, as it frequently is (Ellis, 2009), leading to the commissioning of previous government reports Managing Challenging Behaviour (Ofsted, 2005) and the Steer Report (DfES 2005). Both reports confirmed that behaviour in most schools is good. The work of Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES 2004) has been continued through the roll-out of the Inclusion Development Programme (IDP) by the National Strategies. The IDP provides the continuing professional development programme (CPD). It is planned for the mainstream settings and schools to raise the confidence level and skills of mainstream practitioners in acquiring huge incidence of SEN. As per (DCSF, 2010), one among the most recent modules is named as “Supporting Pupils with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties”. The exact definition of BESD is a much-debated subject – even the arrangement of the B, E, S and D varies between organisations. The previous DCSF, and currently the DfE, prefer to use the acronym BESD, while SEBDA (Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties Association) argue that ‘the “social” and “emotional” generally give rise to the “behaviour” and should be stressed first’ (Cole 2006: 1). The view can also be taken that placing the B first, draws unnecessary attention to the behaviour, detracting from the emotions behind it (Cole, 2011). Although there is much merit to these arguments, for consistency the term BESD will be used throughout the rest of this report, unless referring to a quote that does otherwise, as the focus of the work will be in schools.
A more recent definition has not been settled on, although the revised SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) does offer a guide to symptoms of significant BESD: a marked and persistent inability to concentrate
clear recorded examples of withdrawn or disruptive behaviour difficulties in establishing and maintaining balanced relationships with their fellow pupils or with adults any other evidence of a significant delay in the development of life and social skills Signs that the child experiences considerable frustration or distress in relation to their learning difficulties. The IDP refers practitioners back to this definition, but also makes reference to later guidance provided by the DCSF in 2008, which reiterated the above and added that: ‘A young person or child is regarded to have BESD based on a several factors, like: abnormality, severity, frequency, nature, and persistence of the complexities and their cumulative impact on the young person or child’s behaviour and emotional well being in comparison across expected particular age. (Ellis, 2009) Acknowledge that as a result of such broad definitions, ‘there may be very little that pupils sharing the SEBD label have in common’ (2001: 244). With definitions that are so context-dependent, it is not surprising to find that categorisation of children varies from school to school. Ekins and Grimes’ (2009) recent work in schools suggests that BESD children do feature highly in schools’ inclusion agendas, as ‘challenging behaviour’ was one of three areas of focus commonly referred to by schools when talking about inclusion. Macbeath et al (2005: 60) found that, in general, most teachers have a positive attitude towards inclusion; however, the area they expressed most concern about was the ‘ability of schools to provide a suitable education for children with complex emotional and behavioural needs’.
As per the report given by Ekins in 2009, there are lot of changes have been made in this region from last five years. They are worked as teachers in the school they eager to see children challenging behaviour over there, which also linked exclusion with inclusion and they became more concerned about children. Kalambouka in 2005 stated about it, that their anxiety have been justified in primary school level. There is effect of student inclusively on Emotionsl and behavioural difficulties were as other are negitively behaved at some situations. Ellis in 2009 eknowledged that some of students whose distinctive feature with BESD is, an negitive consequence which may be shown on their teachers and peers. No decling from the side of media on this issues, there are no signs even on this – A Big Debate is made by Chris Woodhead on this in 2006 and he also stated that addition of extra SEN children may show dangourous impact on other pupils. There is a finite time and energy for a teacher, and resources school have. Here school is trying level best in order to provide good facilities for the children, several problems that are raised during providing facilities for children in that school says Woodhead in 2006. DFE in 2010 stated that Recently, A new Coalition government’s white paper has released that shows the importance of teaching. Which expressed their distress about the “poorly disciplined children” who became disturbance for other pupils, that they used to harass them and bring trouble while learning. DFE also stated that it was not only showing impact on students but also on teachers and staff working, this is the main reason many lecturers are leaving their profession. It is all because of the city’s poor behaviour. All these extract some questions that ask to find positive result of steer report by DFES and Ofsted during 2005. Then after it started rapid investigation on good practice in the inclusion of students in BESD mainstream schools, that brings more profits to the school community. Even after getting good achievement, by taking help of SEN they concentrated on improving learning and teaching for children. The four important characters of inclusive leadership that identified by National College in 2010 was: share full vision
All these characters are very interesting that they introduced specially, which can also be applied for the children embraced with BESD. Methodology
The span of this research was partial to primary phase schools. Whatever the approach and structural size developed by secondary schools are very different from the styles that are supporting the BESD pupils. Whereas Middle schools also a part that felt they are very closer to primary school compared to the secondary school. Many of the colleges nominated themselves in order to a part of research. Depending upon their measurement each of them included the children of BESD successfully in their schools. Whoever is at top four places in the final round of nomination, they are going to represent school type range and its geographical area. There are totally four schools, from that two are primary, one is middle and other is junior school, which were located all the way through South East of England. During the academic years 2012-13 as well as 2013-14, researcher is going to visit the every school once. With the head teacher, SENCO (Special Educational Needs Co-Ordinator) and a teaching assistant worked with BESD pupil, together used to conduct semi-structured interviews. To triangulate the results based upon three interviews that help to increase validity. It was already known that many schools are come with different ideas, plans and job titles. From the above given place one of the staff member in school belongs to equivalent standing was interviewed. What is the view of inclusion in the school?, asked by an interviewer. These done before the steps tried to take by BESD and the invitation for interview to comment on the challenges they face. The participants over there started asking to give answer about impact children of BESD having on the remaining school community. All the results are treated carefully, due to the study that has made at greater extent. A certain steps are been taken to check validity of data and trying to take out some result from one particular local authority that will increase dependably. Findings
After conducting a literature review, there was probably founded that the definition of BESD is not perfect, this may raise some issues in school. Although it was questioned that this was not challengingly named by any of the school, but, Daniels et al in 1999 founded that the key member of staff can easily understand nature of this EBD and it was differentiated from routine misbehaviour. This was required in order to support the children effectively, and they are feeling to have at least one in the school. If it was not their more members of the staff are needed to involve in this category. By taking the help of BESD the identification of children is made easy, this was question SENCOs has asked during interview, they were bringing stout systems to find out. They also involved other staff members for identification in order to know complete structure of children behaviour. The staff members are midday supervisors to head teacher. In initial days, parents are also used to help but later on SENCOS has observed the behaviour of children at home circumstances and at school level. As per the DIES released curriculum’s in 1999 advices, that teacher is going to be placed as main for identification and planning process in many schools, as now they are observed by SENCO. SENCO report from primary school that “The teachers are used to feel dispirited if they needed to pass it over on someone else at all times when issue was raises” How inclusive culture is going to be developed?
The main theme from majority of the interviews was only the positive behaviour of staff towards inclusion. But, there was the small felling about inclusion is that used to prefer exclusion. The main reason was the children that they are working with. At present every children in the school they can clearly explain about inclusion when interviewer asks about it. The definition of inclusion is well known by every child and in each school. Each and every children
All the children has given same chances
Each child was supported to use the same chance.
All these messages are shared throughout the school, to TAs, parents and teaching staff. It was difficult to effect by inclusion insight, even though it was more familiar and challenging as parents. In order to broadcast about inclusion here SENCO has played a major role, this process is took place by using some methods depending up on school style. In every school there is an individual conversation with the staff, but in some big schools connection with every staff person individually is more difficult. There is a necessary of daily meeting among teachers as well as TAs. Every weekend the companies are used to discuss about issues that rise in business. From that, SENCO is used to crop the issues mainly, this meeting held based up on the time. In many of big schools email was mostly used as suggestion tool, because it was regularly going to checked by every individual, in union with that it also used to deliver some key messages. In the process of developing inclusive ethos, all the senior leaders who are interviewed and discussed about involving TAs as well as teaching staff. However, some of them discussed about the issues that made to come out of staff and relevant training, but one has specified about office staff. Many of think that they need to understand the BESD issues among staff like office staff, cleaners or ICT technicians. In spite of all these staff members having little regular, they are directly in contact with the children, even now they have chance that entire ethos of the school be contributed. Many of the leadership teams SENCO has became one part, in mainly schools, which they visited mostly. Here SENCO played major role in many schools in order to communicate about inclusion meant and look like. Everyone feel that it was the team effort. Some of the best examples that shows clear structure of roles example we see year group or stage leader, learning mentor, High Level Teaching Assistant, class teacher, leadership team, TA, middle supervisor, and pastoral manager etc., all of these are playing an important role in the school approach to add BESD children and others. The attitude of staff seen here playing major role, and leadership team is used to promote and model their positive attitude. Many schools which are visited over that region identified themselves as having good practice; more over they also identified the challenges faced incorporate with BESD children. Every child is supported by one another in the classroom, but it was not a ideal policy to see in all BESD children. Outside the classrooms, they are conducted one-to-one sessions, example: discussion about social issue or particular emotions. Mostly, these classes are going to be scheduled in the morning period (especially on Mondays, more problems are used to face by children), in order to solve the divergence problems most probably the classes are conducted after break times to solve problems. With the help of one-to-one sessions, there are many groups are involved in order to cover wide range of emotional, behavioural and social skills. Mostly, many schools are used to conduct formal programmes. Friend circle
Thoughts, which are emotional, cool decisions (outside groups providing anger management) Let chill up
A recuperative justice
Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL)
Speeches in different languages (all the expressions and emotions are covered by programmes, by taking help of language analyst speech’s are given) Speaking publicly
Spending time in conversation
Many other groups are made available to schools; this is one of support for staff (eventually to every child). This was the main regular part of local authority and which, varies from region to region. Some advices and key sources that supported by various schools: Psychology related to education
Team which are supportive to inclusion (this is consists of behaviour support team) SEN Counsellor
Language and speech therapy
This study is pointed to find out the present challenges faced by more of primary and middle schools when BESD children are included. Additional to these they gathered leadership polices that they use most effectively. Mainly to offer advice to many other schools, best way is to reduce positive impact of these children in school. These are policies and challenges that are summarised as below: The challenges faced were met with non class based staff in the tackle of whole school, example: disturbance during learning and teaching, showing effect on the behaviour of other child, office staff, children are going to be benefited by taking adult support, stress is increased for teachers. Probably facing many problems by the school, that may affect its atmosphere as well as its status. Effective policy: inclusive ethos are being established, staff is provided with training and support, positive attitude of staff is modelled, as a leadership team, an good relationships are build up, among children and staff, and between the children too.. Whole school is adopted for interventions, A specific responsible staff is appointed for BESD, consistent systems are used for communication among parents and staff, using peer group support.
Cole, T. &. K. B., 2011. How to Help Children and Young People with Complex Behavioural Difficulties,. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. DCSF, 2010. Inclusion Development Programme: Supporting Pupils with Behavioural, Social and Emotional Difficulties, London, DCSF.. DfE, 2011. Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability – A Consultation, London, The Stationery Office. DfES, 1989. Discipline in Schools (Elton Report), London: DfES. DfES, 2001. Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, London, DfES. Ekins, A. &. G. P., 2009. Inclusion: Developing an Effective Whole School Approach,. London: McGraw Hill. Ellis, S. &. T. J., 2009. Behaviour for Learning, Abingdon, Routledge. s.l.:s.n. Kalambouka, A. F. P. D. A. &. K. I., 2005. The impact of population inclusivity in schools on student outcomes. Research Evidence in Education Library, London, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Ofsted, 2005. Managing Challenging Behaviour. London: HM Inspectorate of Education.