The Development of a Vulnerable Pupil Identification System

The Development of a Vulnerable Pupil Identification System

Jeanne Pratt

Gateshead Local Authority

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006

Abstract

This paper reports on a retrospective study, the purpose of which was to review the development of a pupil identification system and the initial piloting of the system through action research with thirty-three primary schools in one local authority. The aim of the research was to ascertain if the vulnerable pupil identification system had allowed schools to identify potentially ‘at risk’ pupils. The objectives of the research included, reviewing the development of a vulnerable pupil identification system, supporting the concept that intervention should be responsive to the factors that put children ‘at risk’ and not the behaviours children demonstrate and finally to begin to enable schools to identify common underlying antecedents of potentially ‘at risk’ behaviours. The first part of the study looks at the work engaged in to develop a system for use in primary schools that would support the early identification of factors that might lead to ‘at risk’ behaviours. The second part of the study consists of a short phone survey using a simple random sampling of schools who used the pupil identification system to ascertain schools views on whether from the pupil identification system they were able to identify the common underlying antecedents of potentially ‘at risk’ behaviours and what action was subsequently taken with this information to support the identified ‘vulnerable’ pupils.

Introduction

Over recent months there has been increased attention paid by the media to the number of young adults who are disaffected and not engaging with society. Work has been ongoing over the past years through a number of government-funded initiatives to address some of the underlying causes of this behaviour at an early stage, intervening before the problems become too great.

It is generally acknowledged that there are common underlying antecedents of ‘at risk’ behaviour and that the antecedents of disaffection and school failure are highly correlated. (Dryfoos, 1990) If these antecedents can be identified in children at an early age intervention can be provided to reduce the risk of disaffection, truanting, low attainment and pregnancy.

In 2002 working in partnership with the Youth Justice Board the DfES established the Behaviour Improvement Programme (henceforth in this paper referred to as BIP) The overall aim of the programme was to raise attainment in pupils across the primary/secondary age range through a range of initiatives. The programme had among its five outcomes the establishment of a system for the identification of ‘at risk’ pupils and the subsequent allocation of a key worker to support these pupils.

This paper reports on two aspects of work undertaken to address this outcome. First the paper reports retrospectively on the development of such a system in one local authority for use in the BIP primary schools and second, the paper reports on the use of a small random sampling of schools to obtain their views at to the ‘usefulness’ of the identification system.

Background Information

The authority this paper reports on is a Phase 2 BIP. Funding for Phase 2 BIP consisted of £3.8 million in the Standards Fund grant to local authorities over three years. The desired outcomes of BIP are reduced truancy, reduced exclusions, improvements in behaviour, Day 1 Provision e.g. educational provision provided for pupils for the first fifteen days of an exclusion (fixed or permanent) and the identification of ‘at risk’ pupils and the allocation of key workers. Schools were chosen to be part of BIP based on high exclusion rate (both fixed and permanent exclusions), low attendance and high unauthorized absences, free school meals and attainment results at GCSE, KS3 SATS and for primary schools KS 1 and 2 SATs. (Excellence in Cities Partnership, 2003) Data was collected over the three years prior to 2003 and aggregated to form a picture of progress from 1999-2002. The results provided for 4 secondary schools located across the authority and a number of linked primary schools. (Excellence in Cities Partnership, 2003)

Literature Review

In Europe as early as Froboel in the 1800 there have been ‘early’ intervention programmes (kindergartens) designed to rescue young children from conditions of poverty, squalor and hunger. Programmes developed in two main strands, compensatory and therapeutic. Compensatory services (within a pre school setting) were provided to meet the social, physical, emotional and intellectual needs of young children and therapeutic programmes worked with individual children who were deemed to be ‘emotionally disturbed’. (Bryant and Graham, 1993)

All these years later, we continue to have both ‘compensatory’ and ‘therapeutic’ services for children and their families. Following on from the Headstart Project in the 1960 in the USA we have the development of Sure Start in England a compensatory programme designed to work with babies, young children and their families. We also have the increasing demand for Child and Adolescent Health Services (CAMHS), Educational Psychology Services and Behaviour Support Services to work therapeutically with individual children and young people. However, there has always been the question as to why some children are more able to cope with adverse circumstances than others. (Jenkins and Keating, 1998; Bernard, 1991)

Over the past twenty-five years there has been a shift from short term, individual focused interventions within schools to an increased awareness of the need for longer term, comprehensive, environmental-focused interventions encompassing not only the school but the family and community as well. (Bernard, 1991) The focus has changed over the years from a problem-focused approach which can be characterized in identifying those factors in a child life which put them ‘at risk’ or ‘vulnerable’, to a more ecological model of human development and the closer examination of those protective factors (resilience) which support a child regardless of the conditions in which they find themselves. (Working Together, 1999 and Framework for Assessment, 2000)

It has long been recognized that a number of factors, both internal and external will impact on a child’s ability to achieve adulthood with the skills and abilities that enable them to become active participants in society. (Jenkins and Keating, 1998) We know from studies (Rutter et al, 1975; Cummings and Cummings, 1988; Jenkins and Smith, 1991; Hammen et al, 1990; von-Knorring, 1991) that a number of factors in a child’s life including overcrowding, conflict, divorce, parental criminality, open hostility and anger, depression and alcohol abuse can increase the likelihood that children will show some type of externalizing or disaffected behaviour when they get older. We also know that children born to teenage mothers are more likely to have emotional and behaviour problems (Hetherington, 1997) and that hostility in the parent child relationship is a strong predictor of emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. (Dodge et al, 1990) We know that although these factors are associated with poor outcomes in children (Jenkins and Keating, 1998) children with one risk factor are no more likely than children with no risk factors to develop behavioural problems later on. (Rutter, 1979) However two or more risk factors does seem to increase the probability of a child developing behaviour problems later on in life. Rutter, (1979) found that five percent of children with two risk factors showed a serious disorder increasing to twenty percent of children with four or more risk factors. We also know that when several risk factors occur together that children’s’ development can be compromised. (Sameroff et al, 1997)

Research by Campbell and Ewing (1990) showed that 67% of hard to manage preschools met DSM-III criteria for an externalizing disorder at the age of 9. Research by White et al, (1990) found that having preschool behaviour problems was the single best predictor of anti-social behaviour at the age of 11. Further research by Henry et al, (1993) has shown a relationship between family context and antisocial outcomes at 11 and 15 with a number of variables including lack of parental consensuses on discipline measures and increased parent changes significant predictors of antisocial group membership.

If you look at research into the four ‘high risk’ behaviours that occur in adolescence, identified by Dryfoos (1990) e.g. delinquency, substance abuse, early unprotected intercourse and school failure you find there are a number of characteristics common to all four ‘high risk’ behaviours. These characteristics are age, gender and ethnicity and predisposing factors such as social status and community quality, which create what Dryfoos calls a ‘state of susceptibility’. (Dryfoos, 1990) It is possible from research into behaviour patterns, mental health and various aspects of society to ascertain what occurs in an individual’s life prior to specific incidents occurring. With enough data, antecedents can be identified, which occur prior to behaviour difficulties occurring. It is these characteristics and predisposing factors, which according to Dryfoos (1990) identifies whether or not a child is ‘at risk’.

Children live with risk factors in their lives all of the time. Some children will be more ‘at risk’ of developing problems later on than others, with an increased probability of developing behavioural difficulties as the number of risk factors a child has to deal with simultaneously increase. (Rutter, 1979) According to Google (American Heritage @ Dictionary of the English Language) ‘at risk’ can be defined as being endangered from exposure to disease or from lack of parental or familial guidance and proper health care. When is the decision made that a child is ‘at risk’ and what constitutes ‘at risk’ behaviour? Is the child who smokes a cigarette whose short term consequence is limited but long term bears the risk of lung cancer ‘at risk’ or is it the child who engages in the act of sexual intercourse that bears the immediate consequence of an unwanted pregnancy but long term might not carry any adverse consequences

In identifying what the common antecedents of the unwanted behaviours are, prevention can be targeted prior to the behaviours occurring e.g. when the child is ‘at risk’ or prior to the development of behaviour difficulties. In theory prevention could be targeted specifically on those factors which lead to the child being ‘at risk’ of developing unwanted behaviour, thereby addressing the need at the source. So if low attainment is down to poor attendance in school deemed to be because of lack of parental support then prevention work can focus on work with and support for parents.

Resilience factors have also been identified which help children address adversity, enabling them to develop positive patterns of coping. (Rolf et al, 1990) Rutter (1999) described resilience as ‘the phenomenon of overcoming stress or adversity’ and the National Centre for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention describes resilience as ‘the ability of individual to remain healthy even in the presence of risk factors’. We know that the social support that a child receives is important to them in providing a link to the community and engaged and connected with others. (Jenkins and Keating, 1998) We also know that boys are more vulnerable than girls (Jenkins and Keating, 1998) and we know that schools play an important part in providing resilience for children through supervision and monitoring as well as providing a cooperative social environment (Jenkins and Keating, 1998)

We know prevention works best when we address both the social and environmental factors that influence the choices that children and young people make. (Working Together, 1999) According to Werner (1990) ”as long as this balance between stressful life events and protective factors is favorable, successful adaptation is possible. However, when stressful life events outweigh the protective factors, even the most resilient child can develop problems”. “Intervention may be conceived as an attempt to shift the balance from vulnerability to resilience, either by decreasing exposure to risk factors and stressful life events or by increasing the number of available protective factors in the lives of vulnerable children” (Werner 1990) It is in the ability to identify early the potential risks which a child is exposed to which allows for targeted intervention. In the next section I will outline the process one authority engaged in to try and accomplish this, in the development of the vulnerable pupil identification system.

Process of developing the vulnerable pupil identification system

Although the problem-solving models presented by Paul and Lipman (1976) and the simpler model of Goodlad (1975) outline to some extent the process undertaken to develop the vulnerable pupil identification system, the action-research model of Lewin (1946) is the ‘best fit’ process. Lewin defined action research as having a spiral of cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. The planning process allows the focus of the work to be identified-in this case the plan was to create a system, which would be useful to schools in their work with pupils in identifying potential areas of ‘at risk’ in order for schools to intervene at an early stage. The action stage allowed for the implementation of the plan, the observation stage allows for any effects to be noticed and the reflection stage allows time to think about how to change and or alter the original plan. This process can be repeated as needed. I would like to use this model to illustrate the processes undertaken to develop the vulnerable pupil identification system.

Planning

The local authority decided to establish a working group to address the issue of identifying ‘at risk’ pupils in order for schools to feel actively involved in the process and to have ownership of the system developed, with the hope that schools would be more willing to use the system and find it beneficial to meeting their needs. (Weiss, 1979; Stenhouse, 1985)

The process of developing the vulnerable pupil identification system took place over about eighteen months. Invitations were sent to everyone within the local authority who was involved in BIP with meetings held roughly on a monthly basis, membership of the group often changed with a core group representing BIP, Educational Welfare Service (EWS), Behaviour Support Teams (BEST), the Children’s Fund and specific schools.

Initially the working group decided to focus on primary pupils, concentrating on looking at a number of models of identifying ‘at risk’ pupils at a primary level, discussing the language issues and meaning around the term ‘at risk’ and deciding which was more important, the process of identifying pupils who were ‘at risk’ or the outcome of what happened once pupils were identified. Expertise in the group allowed for clarification of the difference in terminology between members of the group who were from an education background (LA staff and primary headteachers, secondary deputy headteachers) and those from a social services background (Children’s Trust Manager and Head of Social Services) especially around the concept of ‘at risk’ which took on different meanings from an education or social service perspective to a health perspective. Several schools objected to the term ‘at risk’ feeling that it implied a decision had already been taken as to the level of difficulty the child presented with, preferring the term ‘vulnerable’ because it was less negative and encompassed a greater number of needs. Expertise (member of the ISA pathfinder pilot) allowed for an understanding of the governments move to introduce a Common Assessment Framework for use across all agencies and how the developing system could complement this initiative. The manager of the Educational Welfare Service and the Children’s Fund manager provided views on the wider issues impacting on pupils attending schools including attendance, ethnicity and criminal behaviour.

The CAMHS model of tiered levels 1-4 of service provision was discussed as well as the IRT model of a Continuum of Need (universal services to children). However both of these models were the starting point for assessment of need, the first rung of the ladder of service provision; the model which the group wanted was a means to look at indicators of ‘potential need’, a means to audit where a child was, not an assessment tool to indicate need. The aim was to identify children who were beginning to have difficulties in a number of areas, before the difficulties became acute in order to provide intervention measures if and when they were needed.

Several education members of the group identified areas based on their own experiences as headteachers, which they felt from a school perspective might impact on a child’s ability to engage fully in the education process. A number of these factors were supported from research (Jenkins and Keating, 1998). The areas identified included:

Frequent movesBehaviour issues

Non-school attendanceCriminal behaviour

History of family problemsUnderachieving

Unable to engage with familyDisability

Ill healthEthnic minority*

Transition difficultiesProfessional judgment

Vulnerable pupilother

The inclusion of ethnic minority in the list provided additional information which headteachers felt was important in obtaining an overview of children’s needs. This is because of the increase in ethnic minority population over the past 5 years within the local authority due to a large extent from the influx of refugee children. We know that a child’s ethnicity and ability to communicate in a second language will impact on their attainment as well as their behaviour, development of social skills and self-esteem. (Sammons, 1995; Colliers, 1995; Skuttnab-Kangas, 1981) For that reason Headteachers felt this was useful to include.