Lorem

Reviewing and developing a psychological service’s response to managing behavioural difficulties through action research C. Eleanor Law and Kevin Woods

School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT Educational or school psychologists (EPs/SPs) can offer support with behaviour concerns at the levels of individual, group or organisation. Their practices, whilst being psychologically based, must be respon- sive to local contexts and needs. To explore behaviour practice in a real-world context, and to consider how development in this domain might occur during the adoption of a “part-traded” service delivery model, an empirical investigation was conducted within one English local authority (LA) educational psychology service (EPS). Using an action research model, data were gathered through a focus group with six EPs and an interview with the Principal EP (PEP). Current behaviour practices, psychological approaches and future develop- ment priorities were identified, as well as perceived facilitators and barriers to change and the EPs’ reflections on professional develop- ment through research participation. Implications for EP practice and future research are considered.

KEYWORDS Behaviour difficulties; social, emotional and mental health (SEMH); educational psychologist (EP); school psychologist (SP); action research

Introduction

The management of behavioural difficulties

The management of behavioural difficulties in schools has been highlighted as an area of concern within educational policy, research and practice. Behavioural difficulties in schools are wide-ranging, includingexternalisingor “acting out” behaviours (for example, aggression, anti- social behaviour and defiance), internalising behaviours (for example, anxiety, depression, deliberate self-harm) (Department for Eduacation [DfE], 2014) and low-level disruption (for example, talking out of turn, calling out and disobeying teacher instructions) (OfSTED, 2014). Four −14% of children are reported to exhibit some form of school-based behavioural difficulties (DfE, 2014), whilst Public Health England reports that 10% of 5−16 year olds experience clinically significant mental health needs, such as anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorder (Public Health England, 2016) These diverse behaviours are concerning in terms of their impact upon pupils, parents and families. The equivalent of up to 38 days of teaching time are lost to disruptive behaviour annually (OfSTED, 2014), indicating a potentially negative effect on learning and attainment.

CONTACT C. Eleanor Law [email protected] School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 2019, VOL. 35, NO. 1, 99–117 https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1539835

© 2018 Association of Educational Psychologists

Furthermore, behavioural difficulties can also be detrimental to teacher and pupil emotional wellbeing (Axup & Gersch, 2008) and are a source of conflict between schools and families (Romi & Freund, 1999).

Whilst it is clear that behavioural difficulties are a source of concern, legislation, guidance and psychological approaches to managing these have been subject to change over time. The Elton Report (Department of Education and Science [DoES], 1989) presented a view of behaviour as being “within-pupil”, to be externally “disci- plined” (Rogers, 1990) by teachers through behavioural approaches such as rewards and sanctions. However, Miller (2003) observes that this gave way under the 1997 Labour government to an increased focus on relational factors and the facilitation of positive behaviour through staff roles and whole-school systemic approaches. There is evidence that the present UK Government has returned to advocating “discipline”, with beha- vioural approaches used to respond to concerning behaviours and promote positive ones, alongside emphasis on consistent behaviour policies and school culture (Department for Education [DfE], 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b). Currently, the mental health of children and young people is also implicated within advice and policy sur- rounding behaviour (DfE, 2014), suggesting that mental health and behaviour are related needs grouped under the category of Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) in the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disabilities Code of Practice (Department for Education and Department of Health [DfE&DoH], 2014).

The role of educational psychologists

Educational psychologists (EPs) are a professional group that can support children, schools and families with SEN, including difficult behaviours, working at the level of the individual young person, group, or system, utilising consultation, assessment, inter- vention, research and training (Fallon, Woods, & Rooney, 2010). Law and Woods’ (In press) systematic literature review identified examples of EP practices at each of these levels within the context of behaviour management work, with emphasis on developing behavioural management capacity within organisations such as through training, co- delivering and supervising interventions and action research.

Furthermore, whilst multiple psychological paradigms were applied across the studies reviewed, EPs were found to adopt an holistic overview of behaviours, considering relational and systemic factors as well as “within-child” aspects. EPs were regarded as responding to context, considering the behaviours presented by young people and the development needs of organisations, suggesting that the nature of referrals and the levels of concern about behavioural issues may vary according to time and place. Therefore, service responses to behaviour must be adaptable and responsive to context.

The present context for EP work

Increased service trading has required educational psychology services (EPSs) to be responsive to context in order to generate income from commissioners such as schools or other children’s services, for example, virtual schools (National College for Teaching and Leadership [NCTL], 2014). Lee and Woods (2017) suggested that service trading increased the range of work that might be requested of EPs and the types of skills utilised within their practice. Different service

100 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

commissioners may value different contributions from EPs, potentially departing from a predominance of assessing individual children (Ashton & Roberts, 2006). Furthermore, the distinctive needs of different contexts mean that work can be individually contracted and negotiated, broadening the range of skills and practices EPs may utilise. Therefore, whilst EP practice is partly determined according to national agendas and legislation, EPs’ responsive- ness to local context and individual service commissioner needs is also apparent.

Aims of this study

Although previous research has explored the role of EPs in working with behaviour management concerns (for example, Brown, Powell, & Clark, 2012; Burton, 2006; Hannen & Woods., 2012; Hart, 2010; Hayes, Hindle, & Withington, 2007; Hayes, Richardson, Hindle, & Grayson, 2011; Hayes & Stringer, 2016; Jones, Monsen, & Franey, 2013; O’Callaghan & Cunningham, 2015; Regan & Howe, 2017; Smith & Cooke, 2000; Squires, 2001; Swinson, 2010; Williams, 2012), this research exemplifies individual pieces of work carried out by practitioners, rather than exploring broader service responses to context.

The present study therefore aimed to explore how a LA EPS responded to the needs of its contemporary local context in relation to behaviour management work, an identified development area for the service concerned. This was approached using an action research model, in order to explore behaviour management ideas and practices, contextual factors that shaped service development, and to provide a basis for future service development. The following research questions were considered:

(1) How do EPs currently respond to student behaviour management concerns? (2) What psychological theory and approaches inform these responses? (3) How do EPs envisage the development of their practice and the responses of the

service to these concerns? (4) What are the facilitators and barriers to service development within this context?

Method

Epistemological position

The research was underpinned by a critical realism stance (Maxwell, 2012), which posits that external reality is only imperfectly known and mediated by human perception. Situated between realist and constructionist paradigms, this position incorporates fea- tures of emancipatory approaches, particularly the importance of participant perspec- tives (Robson, 2011), which were integral to the research undertaken.

Design

An action research design, utilising the Research and Development in Organisations (RADIO) model was adopted to answer the research questions. This model was selected owing to its structural incorporation of investigation and development (Ashton, 2009) and its documented use in organisational research (Timmins, Shepherd, & Kelly, 2003; Timmins, Bham, McFayden, & Ward, 2006; Douglas-Osborn, 2017). This model therefore

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 101

provided the means of exploring and synthesising current behaviour management practice within the EPS and identifying, and potentially implementing, ideas for future development. An overview of the RADIO structure can be found below (Table 1).

Participants

An invitation for the researchers to act was given by a UK EPS, due to an identified need in exploring current behaviour management practice and developing service responses to behaviour concerns referred by schools within the LA context (Phases 1 and 2). Following discussions between the authors and a link EP from the service (Phases 3 and 4), all qualified EPs working within the EPS were invited to participate, and to contribute to agreement of the research aims and data gathering methods (Phases 5 and 6). Participants were therefore recruited through self-selecting purposive sampling (Robson, 2011), and included one Principal Educational Psychologist (PEP), three main grade EPs and two associate EPs.

Data gathering

A pilot study with EPs in a different LA utilised a focus group method for exploring current and previous practice in relation to externalising behaviour management, aspira- tional future directions and possible facilitators and barriers to service development. This method was therefore felt to be appropriate for gathering similar information from the EP team during Phase 7 of the RADIO model (Barbour, 2007). In order to explore contextual issues around service development from a managerial perspective, a semi- structured interview was also carried out with the service’s PEP. Both the focus group and interview were audio-recorded and fully transcribed. Notes were also made by the

Table 1. RADIO model. 1. Awareness of a need A local EPS presented to the researchers a perceived need for exploration

of how their service responded to behaviour management concerns and how their offer to schools could be developed.

2. Invitation to act Research commissioning process with researchers and further discussions with link EP from the service.

3. Clarifying organisational and cultural issues

Discussions between link EP and first and second authors for example, change of Principal Educational Psychologist (PEP), adoption of a part- traded model.

4. Identifying stakeholders in area of need

Identified major stakeholders, that is, PEP, EPs in the EPS.

5. Agreeing focus of concern (research aims)

Meeting with PEP and EP team to discuss research aims and data gathering methods.

6. Negotiating framework for information gathering

Meeting with team. Participant information sheet.

7. Gathering information Focus group with EPs who elected to participate. Individual semi-structured interview with PEP.

8. Processing information with research sponsors/stakeholders

Feedback session with EP team.

9. Agreeing areas for future action Reflection activity in feedback session. 10. Action planning Under consideration by the EP team. Researcher has been invited to

attend a future team meeting, to hear updates on future actions. 11. Implementation/action To be undertaken by EP team. 12. Evaluating action To be undertaken by EP team.

102 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

first author during data gathering, to supplement the recording and as a contingency for recording being inaudible or unsuccessful.

Although Phases 10–12 were not fully realised within the timeframe of the research, key findings regarding current practice, future directions and salient facilitators and barriers were analysed from the focus group and interview data and fed back to participants. Participants were then asked to reflect on the process of engagement in the research, and what outcomes and next steps they felt would be appropriate and feasible (Phases 8 and 9). A partial transcription of the recorded reflection section of the feedback meeting was produced, in order to capture participant responses, supplemen- ted by written reflections provided by participants.

Data analysis

Data from the focus group and interview were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage model. An inductive approach, rather than a pre-existing frame- work, was used to code the data and produce basic, organising and global themes (Attride-Stirling, 2001). Initial coding was carried out manually, to gain familiarity with the data, and then using NVIVO software to identify themes across the two data sets. Inter-rater coding was also carried out with a suitably experienced independent researcher, showing inter-coder agreement of 77%. Emergent themes were then reviewed with the second author and re-named and restructured as necessary following discussion of how best to represent the data and structure feedback to participants.

A content analysis (Cohen, Mannion & Morrison, 2011) of the reflective responses was carried out, using the categories of “process reflection” and “future directions”.

Ethical considerations

The research was granted University ethical approval. The ethical guidelines outlined in the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009) and the Health and Care Professions Council’s Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics (2016) were adhered to throughout the research.

Potential participants were presented with provisional research aims and processes at an information meeting prior to the start of the research (Phases 5 and 6), along with a participant information sheet and opportunities to ask questions before deciding on participation. Written opt-in consent was obtained from all participants who were reminded that they could withdraw at any time.

As the authors were aware of potential reputational concerns stemming from group discussion of EP practice, boundaries around confidentiality and anonymity were con- structed with participants. The researchers’ facilitative role maintained focus on service development rather than that of individual practitioners. Benefits of participation, such as group reflection and practice-sharing opportunities, as well as service development and continued professional development (CPD), were also identified.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 103

Results

Four global themes, with associated organisational and basic themes (Attride-Stirling, 2001) were derived from thematic analysis of focus group and PEP interview data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data analysis is presented by global theme, with representations of relevant organising themes.

EP views of behaviour

A range of views regarding behaviour were presented (Figure 1). EPs reported applying a wide range of psychological perspectives to support their understanding of presenting behavioural needs. These included cognitive and neurobiological fac- tors, for example, “executive functioning”, attachment and relational psychodynamic psychology, humanist approaches, for example, Human Givens, behaviourist approaches, and eco-systemic considerations of contexts and interacting factors. A range of psychological paradigms, therefore, may be relevant to understanding and intervening with behavioural difficulties, and EPs may situationally apply different paradigms or integrate multiple perspectives, whilst avoiding the “temptation” to rely on favoured or better-known approaches. This paradigmatic flexibility was regarded as “distinctive” to the EP role compared to other behaviour support agencies. EPs also referred to adopting positive psychology, in exploring strengths and preferred futures (“what do we want to see”), rather than focussing on deficits.

When considering the types of behavioural needs encountered in practice, EPs identified both externalising and internalising behaviours. These include concerning sexualised behaviours, persistent lying, school refusal and non-attendance, behaviours associated with autism spectrum conditions (ASD), quiet and withdrawn behaviour and mental health needs. Despite identifying distinct types of behaviours, EPs commented that “behaviour”, that is, externalising behaviours, and “SEMH needs” (social, emotional and mental health), that is, behaviours associated with internalising conditions or needs, are connected:

we had a big discussion on where does behaviour end and social emotional mental health start? And actually we’re saying it’s a continuous cycle

Therefore, behaviour may be regarded as wide-ranging and not limited to externalising behaviours such as persistent disruption or anti-social behaviour.

Although EPs referred to diagnosable conditions with behavioural implications, such as ADHD, differing views on the appropriateness and utility of behavioural “labelling”

EP views of behavioural needs

• Applying psychological perspectives on behaviour within practice

• Types of behavioural needs encountered e.g. ASC • Views on labelling of behaviours • Contextualisation of behavioural presentations • Differences in behavioural needs and practices between

primary and secondary schools

Figure 1. EP views of behaviour.

104 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

were reported. Diagnosis and labelling could potentially facilitate early intervention and access to appropriate support; furthermore, it was suggested that labelling “helps the person externalise the behaviour from themselves” and may therefore avoid apportion- ing blame to parents, carers, teachers or children. However, behavioural labels were also regarded as potentially “static” and “within-child”, with concerns that they “then become [the child’s] definition of themselves”.

Therefore, although EPs were aware of behavioural labels, these may not, to them, represent a completely useful or sufficient approach to understanding and interven- ing with behavioural concerns. Instead, the importance of “unpicking” behaviours to explore underlying causes (“what’s driving it, what’s unmet, what’s happening here”), contextual influences (“we know that behaviour’s in context”) and what the beha- viour communicated (“I would see behaviour as a communication, as an expression of something that’s going on”) was emphasised. This contextualisation and explora- tion of behaviour may contribute to creating “an empathy for the child” and imple- menting appropriate interventions that address potential underlying causes of behaviours:

unless we. . .look at what’s causing the behaviour. . .whether it’s language. . .inappropriate support at home, or something’s gone on at home maybe, or a learning need. . .without understanding that, I don’t think you can just. . .put the support in at the end of it.

Contextualising behaviour in order to understand and intervene appropriately was also considered important due to contextual changes that occur between primary and secondary schools, such as reduced information sharing, pupils being taught by multiple staff and increased exam pressure. These contextual changes may correspond with differences in the type and frequency of behavioural difficulties observed by EPs in secondary settings:

. . .in high school, I see more mental health needs. . .sort of further up the year groups in high school. More self-harming, higher levels of anxiety. . .

EP views of behaviour practice

EPs also discussed their behaviour practice (Figure 2) in terms of how their role is distinctive from that of other behaviour support agencies and practitioners. Crucially, EPs viewed their distinctiveness as “giving away” psychological knowledge to empower others, rather than framing themselves with an “expert” role in managing behaviour. The processes, as well as the content, of EP behaviour practice were therefore emphasised. This includes adopting holistic overviews of contexts within which problematic beha- viours occur, and “unpicking” interacting factors, rather than taking medicalised, within- child perspectives:

. . .we go more for the context. . . and clinicals [clinical psychologists] go more for the “those symptoms add up to that checklist there”

The distinctiveness of the EP approach was also thought to lie within a solution-focussed emphasis on working towards change. This entails creating empathy for the child, helping schools and families to reframe their ideas on what could cause concerning behaviours and supporting problem-solving processes towards achieving desired

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 105

outcomes. However, the importance of doing so sensitively and with empathy for adult stakeholders was conveyed:

. . .we’ve got to understand what they’re facing on a daily basis. . .if we go straight in and go “What’s underneath the behaviour for that child?”. . .it’s going to be a you against them sort of thing

These underlying principles and processes for working with behavioural concerns were located within a range of practices. These included carrying out individual casework, one-off assessments and statutory work as “most of what we would do”, and the utility of this work was acknowledged:

I enjoy doing traditional casework. . .because I do feel that we have that influence there

However, limitations of working with behavioural concerns at the individual level were also identified, such as reports not being read and disseminated amongst those sup- porting pupils and a sense that such work was frequently only requested at crisis points, when pupils were at risk of exclusion or there was a perceived agenda to remove pupils with challenging behaviours:

it becomes within-child, saying “Look, we need them out because. . .they keep hitting people and biting”

It was also acknowledged that the EP role with behaviour could extend beyond one-off, individual assessment and reactive responses. EPs referred to the importance of consulta- tion with adult stakeholders as a means of sharing expertise, exploring interacting factors and joint problem-solving around challenging behaviours, thus enabling more solution- focussed and holistic practice. Other behaviour work included intervention with individuals and groups (for example, resilience building, narrative therapy, developing classroom behaviour management practices) and practice at systemic levels, such as contributing to multi-agency processes within the LA. Furthermore, instances of working preventatively, such as transition planning and developing support systems within schools, were identified as essential for capacity building within organisations as well as meeting individual needs:

you can’t be there all the time and giving them snapshots. Because that’s what they need, it’s a system themselves, to support themselves

The EP role with behaviour was therefore regarded as fulfilling different functions, and occurring at multiple eco-systemic levels, despite a current prevalence of individually focussed practice.

EP views of their current practices

around behavioural concerns

• Distinctive contribution of EP when working with behavioural concerns

• Past practice relating to behavioural concerns • Current practice relating to behavioural concerns • Potential future directions for behaviour practice • Priorities for service development

Figure 2. EP views of behaviour practice.

106 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

It was apparent that changes in the EP role with behaviour occur over time, indicating the importance of current context in shaping practice. EPs reported less involvement in individual and group therapeutic work, and systemic work such as training and multi- agency conferences on behavioural topics. Furthermore, EPs identified ways in which behavioural practice could develop in the future. This included a broader general focus upon behaviour alongside other areas of need:

this is what most of us are feeling now. . .we need to get into behaviour

with specific attention to challenging behaviours linked to prevalent needs within the LA, such as those associated with ASD, child sexual exploitation (CSE) and concerning sexualised behaviours. At individual and group levels, EPs expressed a wish to increase their use of consultation and therapeutic work. Increased systemic working within schools and the LA was also identified as a preferred future direction for the service, such as expanding the strategic role of the EPS, including participation in multi-agency early intervention and support systems for young people with challenging behaviours and contributing to decisions regarding future provision. Working more preventatively, and with greater multi-agency liaison and co-operation, were therefore regarded as being key areas of EP practice to develop in the future.

Overall, the following key areas for service development were highlighted by the PEP, which could form the basis of service action plans to be implemented and evaluated:

● Increased input with behaviours associated with ASD and sexualised behaviours ● Increased consultation and intervention within schools, as opposed to a model of one-off assessment

● Advocacy for children and young people, with assessment including consideration of gaining their voices, views and feelings to “get a handle on their behaviour”

● Earlier intervention and more multi-agency working to ensure holistic understand- ings of young people’s needs and the involvement of different services

Facilitators of behaviour practice and service development

Numerous factors were identified which EPs felt facilitated their current behaviour practice and would support future development (Figure 3). Although the EP role had historically been understood by schools, families and other agencies as primarily carry- ing out learning assessments, it was felt that a broader understanding of the EP role, including with behaviour, was being constructed and more widely recognised.

[we are] getting away from just having WISCs and WIATs [psychometric assessments] really, forging ahead. On the whole, so far, the feedback has been from schools that they’re quite pleased with this idea

In turn, this leads to schools commissioning further behaviour work from EPs, and creates opportunities to practise in preferred ways:

we’ve got schools to buy us in for transition work and . . .for risk assessments, and for critical incidents as well. So it is swinging slightly more towards behaviour

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 107

It was also identified that EPs could demonstrate their range of work through “making the most of opportunities” and challenges that arise circumstantially within the LA and schools, such as responding to critical incidents. Successes with such work not only showcase EP skills and practices beyond carrying out individual learning assessments, and therefore promote positive perceptions of the EPS, but also increase the likelihood of similar future work being commissioned, as understanding of the scope of the EP role expands:

once you’ve had something go well, people want more of it

This shared understanding was felt to be supported through the development of good relationships with schools, where EPs were trusted to practise in broader ways, and had greater influence within schools to ensure that practice was implemented:

it might just be about relationships with people and schools, so that we can do systemic work in schools around behaviour, or that we can write a report and feel that we know that the SENCO’s really going to pass this on to the right people.

Contextual factors relating to the development of the EPS were also identified as supporting a wider range of behaviour work. Increasing the size of the team, and introdu- cing positions for associate, assistant and trainee EPs enables the delivery of “a greater range of things”, including more systemic and group work and evaluating the impact of behavioural and therapeutic interventions. Although demand for individual casework and statutory work is likely to continue, increased team capacity means that EPs have time to work more broadly alongside fulfilling statutory duties and carrying out individual case- work. Furthermore, the diversity of roles and experiences created by team expansion supports “bringing new things in to us” which, alongside continued professional develop- ment opportunities, develops the range of skills and practices that can be offered.

Opportunities for multi-agency working and support from co-ordinated LA responses to managing behavioural concerns were also thought to facilitate EP practice, through creating “that context of. . .a local authority that takes it seriously”. This joined-up approach assists in raising the profile of particular needs and types of behaviours, and also highlighting the contribution made by EPs in responding to these. Therefore, facilitating factors occurring at a range of ecosystemic levels were identified.

Barriers to, and pressures on, behaviour practice and service development

Conversely, EPs also identified various barriers to effective and developing behaviour practice within the contexts of the EPS, schools and the LA (Figure 4). Financial con- straints were described as prevalent, in terms of the EPS being required to generate

Facilitators of behaviour practice

and service development

• Changing perceptions of the EP role with behaviour • Good relationships between schools and EPs • Positive service-user perceptions of the EPS • EPs responding to opportunities and challenges

constructively • Current ability to develop and expand the EP team • Opportunities for, and participation in, multi-agency

work

Figure 3. Facilitators of behaviour practice and service development.

108 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

income within the adoption of a part-traded model of service delivery. This creates subsequent pressure to provide work that schools perceive as value for money, parti- cularly as schools currently experience funding pressures and therefore prioritise their EP time for high-need individual learning cases:

if the schools have just, say, one session, and they have one or two pupils either with learning or social, emotional, behavioural needs, and they want to push forward for an EHCP, their hands are tied

Not only does this limit the range of behaviour work for which EPs are commissioned, but the effectiveness of such work may be compromised due to school budget and staffing cuts which subsequently impact implementation of EP advice:

they’re going to lose ten members of staff, and then how are they going to say “Yeah, we’ll do that intervention and we’ll do this, that and the other”

This is further compounded by time restraints on both schools and EPs. Large allocations mean that EPs are limited in the amount of time available for individual settings. Not only does this affect the EP-school relationship required to develop trust for contracting broader ranges of work, but also limits the types of work that EPs can deliver in the available time, including therapeutic and systemic work:

If I said to a school now, ‘I’ll come in and shadow a pupil for the day, or for the morning”, that’s all their time gone

Similarly, time constraints upon schools can result in barriers to effective practice, such as unavailability of staff for consultations, and work not being embedded or fully implemented by schools following EP input.

However, as LA services are reduced due to “the wider picture of cuts to services”, the EPS “have more behaviour cases coming our way” due to a lack of alternative support. Therefore, the EPS experiences opposing pressures of increased demand for services but reduced capacity and financial support to meet demand, alongside restrictions on the types of work for which they are commissioned and school capacity to implement measures to promote change.

Although the EPS experiences increased demand for behaviour work, with growing recognition of their contributions in this domain, other agencies’ persistent views of the EP role as restricted to learning support can limit EP opportunities for behaviour work (“The schools might know we do behaviour but maybe just those who make decisions

Barriers to, and pressures on,

behaviour practice and service

development

• Financial considerations for/restrictions on commissioning services and the EPS

• Cuts to LA services working with behavioural concerns e.g. behaviour support team

• Challenges of multi-agency co-operation • Changes to the EPS structure and funding • Different perceptions of EP role amongst service

commissioners • Changes to LA structures and processes, impacting EP

practice • Time restrictions on EPs and service users

Figure 4. Barriers to, and pressures on, behaviour practice and service development.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 109

about us don’t”). This can also limit opportunities to collaborate with other agencies, or for involvement with particular types of behavioural needs:

CAMHS are saying that they’ll be driving mental health. . . the context of “no, it’s for us, it’s for us” is a huge barrier

Furthermore, the context of service cuts is perceived to create a climate of inter-agency competition for work, rather than collaboration to achieve joined-up early intervention:

When. . . it’s coming down to those two people for one job, which is what’s happening. . . they don’t work together and they’ll. . .undermine each other

This competitiveness can, in turn, create an atmosphere of protectiveness surrounding the remit of different agencies, meaning that “the pressures of competition then squeeze the perceptions of what we can do”. Therefore, perceptions of what needs EPs can support and opportunities to collaborate with other agencies are restricted further, in opposition to the EPS’s desire of broadening their behavioural remit and multi-agency work.

Furthermore, changes within the EPS and the LA can also represent barriers to change and development. Although a consensus was expressed regarding the need for EPs to work with behaviour concerns, individual differences in approaches to practice and pre- ferred ways of working were evident. Therefore, implementing changes to service delivery, such as increasing the use of consultation, can be experienced anxiously by EPs which in turn can contribute to a skill atrophy limiting the range of behavioural practices used:

the longer you don’t do something, the less confident you feel at then restarting doing it

These concerns regarding practice development may be heightened by contextual changes occurring within the EPS and wider LA, such as changes to management personnel and structures, and LA statutory assessment processes. Therefore, a period of creating stability and familiarisation with new processes is essential before imple- menting desired changes in behaviour practice.

EP reflections on action research participation

EPs further identified advantages of participation in the research in terms of both its processes and applications to future service development.

Research processes Participation in the focus group and interview was thought to create protected time and a reflective space for considering individual and service approaches to behaviour practice in detail. Time pressures experienced by EPs frequently prevent this, and so the EPs appreciated the opportunity to share experiences, to identify commonalities and differences in practice and to consider their application of psychology within behaviour work. Furthermore, participants also commented that participation in the research had generated interest in both the processes of carrying out action research, and in wider EP behaviour practice as documented in the literature.

110 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

Research contributions to future service delivery and development As well as synthesising current practice and service development, and identifying individual CPD needs, the research will also support the EPS annual plan. This will include identifying priority development areas, evidencing the need for behaviour to be a service delivery focus and for multi-agency work, and identifying what skills and practices are, or could be, offered by the team. Consideration of facilitators and barriers may also support service development. Finally, the synthesis of findings relating to behaviour practice and relevant psychological paradigms may form the basis of design- ing and delivering promotional events to schools to support their understanding of behaviour and the potential contribution of EPs.

Discussion

Summary of findings

This research explored the views of EPs in one LA regarding the types of behaviour difficulties encountered, the practices utilised to support and manage these, and the psychological paradigms which EPs apply to aid their understanding of behavioural concerns and inform intervention. As a piece of action research, ideas for future service development in this domain, and the potential facilitators and barriers to change, were also considered.

Research Question 1: How do EPs currently respond to student behaviour management concerns?

The EPs reported working with both internalising and externalising behavioural concerns (DfE, 2014) at multiple eco-systemic levels of individual, group and organisa- tion (Fallon et al., 2010), and exemplified the core functions of consultation, assessment, intervention and training within their practice (Scottish Executive, 2002). However, much of their current practice involves responding reactively to concerns regarding individual pupils, typically at times of crisis such as school exclusion risk. Whilst the EPs identified the benefits of individual casework (Boyle & Lauchlan, 2009), other useful processes and activities were identified including consultation to identify interacting factors underlying concerning behaviours and to promote solution-focussed working towards change (Hayes & Stringer, 2016).

Significantly, EPs identified ways in which their responses and approaches to beha- viour concerns could be regarded as distinctive from that of other agencies, indicating a concern to define a unique role for EPs (Ashton & Roberts, 2006). However, this was situated within value for multi-agency collaboration (Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009) and empowering others by donating and applying psychological knowledge to support understanding and effect change.

Research Question 2: What psychological theory and approaches inform these responses?

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 111

The EPs identified a range of psychological paradigms which may be applied to their conceptualisations of behavioural needs and which inform the responses made to these. Although some EPs reported preferences for particular approaches, such as executive skills or the Human Givens frameworks, the need to apply psychology within context was strongly emphasised. Therefore, different approaches may be integrated, combined or prioritised depending upon the specific context and presenting needs of those within it (Law & Woods, 2018). This view may contrast with previous findings that EPs tend to associate behaviourist psychology most frequently with effective behaviour manage- ment (Hart, 2010).

Research Question 3: How do EPs envisage the development of their practice and the responses of the service to these concerns?

EPs regarded behaviour work as a crucial, and increasing, aspect of their role. EP involvement with particular behaviour concerns was identified as necessary on account of prevalent issues within the LA, for example, challenging behaviours associated with ASD, sexualised behaviour and internalising behaviours associated with SEMH needs. The latter may also reflect an increasing national trend for EP support with internalising and mental health needs (Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education [DoHSC & DfE], 2017). Furthermore, EPs identified opportunities to develop and expand the types of activities undertaken when supporting with behavioural con- cerns, such as consultation (Hayes & Stringer, 2016), therapeutic work (Atkinson, Squires, Bragg, Wasilewski & Muscutt, 2013; O’Callaghan & Cunningham, 2015) and systemic work within schools (Hayes et al., 2007) and the wider LA to promote joined-up working and early intervention to meet needs (DfE & DoH, 2014). Equally, the importance of advocating for children and young people, and incorporating their views into decision- making processes (UNICEF, 1989; Harding & Atkinson, 2009), was identified as an important future direction for development.

Research Question 4: What are the facilitators and barriers to service development within this context?

Increasing recognition of the scope of the EP role, to incorporate behaviour work, was identified as a key facilitator to service development. This reflects a broader remit for EPs beyond learning and may increase the opportunities available to them to engage in work such as critical incident support (Posada, 2006; Lockhart & Woods, 2017) and participation in multi-agency processes. However, barriers to service development within the EPS, schools and the LA were also identified, such as threats to professional identity creating an ethos of protectiveness rather than inter-agency collaboration (Hymans, 2008). Crucially, the implications of cuts to services and the necessity of adopting a part-traded service delivery model (Lee & Woods, 2017) may limit capacity for the broader range of behaviour practices desired by EPs, indicating the relevance of time and financial constraints on practice within local contexts.

112 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

Implications of the current research

A key consideration of the present research was how EPs apply psychology within their own service and local contexts (Frederickson & Miller, 2008). Participants within the study identified a benefit of research participation as having the opportunity and reflective space to consider their application of psychological theory to behaviour practice, suggesting that conscious consideration may not be routinely given to how, and what, psychological theory is applied within daily practice. Haring, Lovitt, Eaton & Hansen’s (1978) learning hierarchy model posits movement through accuracy, fluency, generalization and adaptation within competent skill acquisition and the application of psychology within EP practice may conform to this model, with practice becoming more automatic over time. However, EPs may have cause to explicitly consider the application of psychology within practice (Lunt & Majors, 2000; Norwich, 2000) with professional practice frameworks providing models for integrating theory and practice (British Psychological Society [BPS], 2002; Gameson, Rhydderch, Ellis, & Carroll, 2003, 2005; Monsen & Frederickson, 2008; Rhydderch & Gameson, 2010; Annan et al., 2013). The current research findings, whilst primarily considering EP practice relating to behaviour in one local context, may therefore illustrate a broader question of how EPs apply their psychological knowledge to practice, and exemplify their potential to reflect more explicitly upon this through continuing professional development opportunities.

The present research may also have implications for service development. As more services adopt traded models of delivery in response to national and local changes (Lee & Woods, 2017), EPs may seek to meet the needs of their commissioners by adopting practices informed by research and knowledge of the practices undertaken by EP colleagues within other services. The current research was undertaken by an outsider researcher working in a LA with a different “local offer” in relation to behaviour management, which created opportunities for cross-service development through sharing practice and research findings. Developmental cross-service colla- boration has recently been observed more broadly, for example in joint psychologi- cal service responses to critical incidents such as the Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire. Therefore, the effectiveness of service responses to need may be enhanced through inter-service collaboration, in addition to exploration and reflection within EP teams.

Limitations of the research and future research directions

The current findings from within one service may be limited in their generalisability to the behaviour practice of EPs more widely. Different views of behaviour practice, and development ideas, may be offered by EPs working within other geographical areas, with different local pressures and needs. Furthermore, although the participants varied in the length of their experience as EPs and included both male and female EPs, the representativeness of the participant group is not precisely established.

Although the research followed an action research model, its scope was limited by researcher and participants’ time constraints to identification of initial development possibilities. Therefore, the action planning, implementation and evaluation phases of the research were not tracked through on this occasion, meaning that a more nuanced

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 113

and complete case example of service development relating to behaviour management practices was not realised.

EPs within the current research identified the benefits of action research participation, as individual reflective practitioners and for the identification of future service develop- ment needs. It may be useful for similar research to be conducted in other EP services, in order to identify a potentially broader range of EP practices in relation to behaviour, the psychological approaches applied to behaviour work and the directions, facilitators and barriers for service development in this domain. Additionally, the findings of the current research in relation to EPs’ behaviour management practices could form the basis of a survey instrument to gather more extensive information from across a broad range of psychological services, to illustrate the full breadth of practice development possibilities for services and practitioners.

This work was supported by the Department for Education [National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This project was funded through England’s Department for Education (DfE) National College for Teaching and Learning (NCTL) ITEP award 2012–2015.

References

Annan, M., Chua, J., Cole, R., Kennedy, E., James, R., Markúdóttir, I., . . . Shah, S. (2013). Further iterations on using the problem-analysis framework. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29 (1), 79–95.

Ashton, R. (2009). Using the research and development in organisations model to improve transition to high school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(3), 221–232.

Ashton, R., & Roberts, E. (2006). What is valuable and unique about the educational psychologist? Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(2),111–123.

Atkinson, C, Squires, G, Wasilewski, D, & Muscutt, J. (2013). Effective delivery of therapeutic interventions: findings from four site visits. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29(1), 54-68.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3),385–405.

Axup, T., & Gersch, I. (2008). Challenging behaviour: The impact of challenging student behaviour upon teachers’ lives in a secondary school: Teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Special Education, 35(3), 144–151.

Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. London: Sage. Boyle, C., & Lachlan, F. (2009). Applied psychology and the case for individual casework: Some reflections

on the role of the educational psychologist. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(1), 71–84. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. British Psychological Society (2002). Professional practice guidelines: Division of educational and

child psychology. Leicester: BPS. British Psychological Society (BPS). (2009). Code of ethics and conduct. Leicester: BPS.

114 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

Brown, E. L., Powell, E., & Clark, A. (2012). Working on what works: Working with teachers to improve classroom behaviour and relationships. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(1), 19–30.

Burton, S. (2006). ‘Over to you’: Group work to help pupils avoid school exclusion. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(3), 215–236.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Abingdon: Routledge Department for Education (2011). Getting the simple things right: Charlie Taylor’s behaviour check-

list. London: DfE Department for Education (2014). Mental health and behaviour in schools: Departmental advice for

school staff. London: DfE. Department for Education. (2015) Behaviour and discipline in schools: Guidance for governing

bodies. London: DfE. Department for Education (2016). Behaviour and discipline in schools: Advice for headteachers and

school staff. London: DfE. Department for Education (2017a). Case studies of behaviour management practices in schools rated

Outstanding. London: DfE. Department for Education (2017b). Creating a culture: How school leaders can optimise behaviour.

London: DfE. Department for Education and Department of Health (2014). Special educational needs and

disability code of practice: 0-25 Years. London: DfE & DoH. Department of Education and Science (1989). Discipline in schools. London: HMSO. Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education (2017). Transforming children

and young people’s mental health provision: A green paper. London: DoHSC & DfE. Douglas-Osborn, E. (2017). Early investment: The use of action research in developing the role of

an educational psychologist in an early years setting. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(4), 406–417.

Fallon, K., Woods, K., & Rooney, S. (2010). A discussion of the developing role of educational psychologists within Children’s Services. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 1–23.

Frederickson, N., & Miller, A. (2008). What do educational psychologists do? In N. Frederickson, A. Miller, & T. Cline (Eds.), Topics in applied psychology: Educational psychology (pp.3-30). London: Hodder Arnold.

Gameson, J., Rhydderch, G., Ellis, D., & Carroll, T. (2003). Constructing a flexible model of integrated professional practice (Part 1), Educational and Child Psychology, 20(4), 96–115.

Gameson, J., Rhydderch, G., Ellis, D., & Carroll, T. (2005). Constructing a flexible model of integrated professional practice Part 2 – Process and practice issues, Educational and Child Psychology, 22 (4), 96–115.

Gaskell, S., & Leadbetter, J. (2009). Educational psychologists and multi-agency working: Exploring professional identity. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(2), 97–111.

Hannen, E., & Woods., K. (2012). Narrative therapy with an adolescent who self-cuts: A case example. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(2), 187–214.

Harding, E., & Atkinson, C. (2009). How EPs record the voice of the child. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(2), 125–137.

Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Hart, R. (2010). Classroom behaviour management: Educational psychologists’ views on effective practice. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(4), 353–371.

Hart, R. (2010). Classroom behaviour management: educational psychologists' views on effective practice. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(4), 353-371. doi:10.1080/ 13632752.2010.523257

Hayes, B., Hindle, S., & Withington, P. (2007). Strategies for developing positive behaviour manage- ment. Teacher behaviour outcomes and attitudes to the change process. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(2), 161–175.

Hayes, B., Richardson, S., Hindle, S., & Grayson, K. (2011). Developing teaching assistants’ skills in positive behaviour management: An application of video interaction guidance in a secondary school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27(3), 255–269.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 115

Hayes, M., & Stringer, P. (2016). Introducing Farouk’s process consultation group approach in Irish primary schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32(2), 145–162.

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). (2016). Standards of conduct, ethics and performance. United Kingdom: HCPC.

Hymans, M. (2008). How personal constructs about “professional identity” might act as a barrier to multi-agency working. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 279–288.

Jones, D., Monsen, J., & Franey, J. (2013). Using the staff sharing scheme to support school staff in managing challenging behaviour more effectively. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29(3), 258–277.

Law, C, & Woods, K. (2018). The representation of the management of behavioural difficulties in EP practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(4), 352-369. doi:10.1080/02667363.2018.1466269

Lee, K., & Woods, K. (2017). Exploration of the developing role of the educational psychologist within the context of “traded” psychological services. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(2), 111–125.

Lockhart, C., & Woods, K. (2017). Exploring the development of critical incident response teams. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 5(4), 243–254

Lunt, I., & Majors, K. (2000). The professionalisation of educational psychology: Challenges to practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 15(4), 237–245.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. London: Sage. Miller, A. (2003). Teachers, parents and classroom behaviour: A psychosocial approach. Berkshire:

Open University Press. Monsen, J., & Frederickson, N. (2008). The Monsen et al problem solving model ten years on. In B.

Kelly, L. Woolfson, & J. Boyle (Eds.), Frameworks for practice in educational psychology- a textbook for trainees and practitioners (pp. 69–93). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL). (2014). Educational psychology workforce survey: Research report April 2014. Manchester, NH: NCTL.

Norwich, B. (2000). Education and psychology in interaction: Working with uncertainty in intercon- nected fields. London: Routledge.

O’Callaghan, P., & Cunningham, E. (2015). Can a targeted, group-based CBT intervention reduce depression and anxiety and improve self-concept in primary age children? Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(3), 314–326.

OfSTED (2014). Below the radar: Low-level disruption in the country’s classrooms. London: Author. Posada, S. (2006). Applying psychology in local authority emergency planning processes.

Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(3), 199–213. Public Health England (2016). The mental health of children and young people in England. London:

PHE Publications. Regan, H., & Howe, J. (2017). Video self-modelling: An intervention for children with behavioural

difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(1), 93–102. Rhydderch, G., & Gameson, J. (2010). Constructing a flexible model of integrated professional

practice: Part 3 – The model in practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(2), 123–149. Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research: 3rd Edition. Sussex: Wiley. Rogers, B. (1990). You know the fair rule. London: Longman. Romi, S., & Freund, M. (1999). Teachers’, students’ and parents’ attitudes towards disruptive

behaviour problems in high school: A case study. Educational Psychology, 19(1),53–70. Scottish Executive (2002). Review of provision of educational psychology services in Scotland.

Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. Smith, C., & Cooke, T. (2000). Collaboratively managing the behaviour of a reception class pupil.

Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(2), 235–242. Squires, G. (2001). Using cognitive behavioural psychology with groups of pupils to improve self

control of behaviour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(4), 317–335. Swinson, J. (2010). Working with a secondary school to improve social relationships, pupil

behaviour, motivation and learning. Pastoral Care in Education, 28(3), 181–194. Timmins, P., Bham, M., McFayden, J., & Ward, J. (2006). Teachers and consultation: Applying research

and development in organisations (RADIO). Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(4), 305-319.

116 C. E. LAW AND K. WOODS

Timmins, P., Shepherd, D., & Kelly, T. (2003). The research and development in organisations approach and the evaluation of a mainstream behaviour support initiative. Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(3), 229–242.

UNICEF (1989). The united nations convention on the rights of the child. London: Author. Williams, H. (2012). Fair Pairs and three part praise – Developing the sustained use of differential

reinforcement of alternative behaviour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(3), 299–313

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN PRACTICE 117

Copyright of Educational Psychology in Practice is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.