Contributions from: George Pavlidis (University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece).
Abstract
This paper investigates the views of teachers and EBD children in both mainstream and special schools regarding the strategies most likely to succeed in providing a meaningful educational experience. The views of 20 teachers and 20 pupils were firstly elicited using a structured conversation schedule. A content-analysis of the two sets of transcripts followed, which identified sets of inclusion strategies. Both the pupils and teachers were again interviewed, during which time their views were elicited on the strategies suggested by the other group. Findings suggest a high degree of correlation between the preferred teacher and pupil strategies for individual management of learning need, but some discrepancy in whole-school approaches to EBD pupils.
Introduction
This paper investigates the views of teachers and EBD children* in both mainstream and special schools regarding the strategies most likely to succeed in providing a meaningful educational experience. The views of 20 teachers were firstly elicited regarding their preferred strategies for dealing with individual behaviours. This part of the study has been ongoing, beginning during 1998-99, and partially reported elsewhere (Garner, 1999). A structured conversation schedule was adopted for this purpose. The same teachers were then re-interviewed after the publication of the Index of Inclusion (CSIE, 2000); their views were elicited on those aspects of their strategies which they felt contributed to the educational inclusion of children with EBD. At the same time a sample of children, who had been placed on the register of SEN on account of their problematic behaviour, were interviewed. These pupils were selected from attendees of the schools of the teacher-participants. Findings suggest a high degree of correlation between the preferred teacher and pupil strategies for individual management of learning need, but some discrepancy in whole-school approaches to the inclusion of EBD pupils. The paper is divided into four parts. The first provides an overview of the somewhat depressing recent scenario for EBD pupils in schools in England. Secondly I present some data which suggests that teachers adopt a combination of three broad behaviour management strategies. Thirdly data regarding teacher-approaches and inclusion is presented. Finally there is a brief discussion concerning the implications of these data for developing more inclusive attitudes and strategies for children whose behaviour causes concern.
Most 'pupils with problems' continue to be maintained in ordinary (i.e. mainstream) schools. There is little doubt that the Elton Report's (1989) focus on this sector of provision proved to be a major factor in this (DES, 1989). The Report's recommendations for such schools were comprehensive and have been instrumental in many recent changes in the management of these pupils. Thus, Clark, Dyson, Millward and Skidmore (1995) are able to report that mainstream schools 'were responding to behaviour management as a whole school policy' and by ensuring that 'specific behaviour management initiatives were not viewed in isolation but were set in the context of broader approaches to personal and social education'.
The widespread shift towards inclusive thinking, itself an underpinning theme of ISEC 2000, has brought with it a requirement that all teachers seek to support children whose behaviour is frequently problematic. In spite of these kinds of developments, however, it remains clear that some mainstream schools are at best ambivalent about the presence of pupils with problems. Moreover, there are indications that some schools have been accustomed to a practice of internally segregating pupils with problems, by withdrawing such pupils from certain classes or activities. In some cases, too, there have existed on-site units for so-called disruptive pupils (Garner & Sandow, 1991), an approach which has secured official approbation in the last few months. That such a strategy can scarcely be regarded as 'inclusive' is but one of the paradoxes that it raises.
In looking at the recent history of developments regarding EBD pupils in schools in England it is difficult not to assume an air of resignation and despondency. The failure of mainstream education to deal effectively with pupils with problems can be attributed to a number of factors. The perceptions and professional beliefs of teachers concerning levels of discipline in schools had been particularised in research conducted by Lowenstein (1975). This indicated that teachers were inclined to believe that incidents of severely aggressive behaviour were commonplace in schools other than their own (Armstrong & Galloway, 1994). It is worth noting that Turkington (1986) argued that the 'disruptive pupil' was an invention of the media utilised by teacher unions in order to advance their claims for professional recognition and enhancement of salary structures. Whatever the validity of such claims, it remained apparent that, during the period leading to the Elton Report, teachers in mainstream schools were becoming increasingly more militant towards those children whose behaviour they viewed as unacceptable. A possible explanation for this state of affairs may be found in the increasing scrutiny (and frequent negative criticism) of teachers by politicians and others during this period (O'Hear, 1988), with the consequence that the Elton Report noted that '...the status of teachers has declined in recent years' (p.12). Teachers became embattled and an increasing number were unable, because of their own insecurities, to empathise with the needs of those children who misbehaved in school. Nor should it go unnoticed that a similar situation has prevailed in the decade following the Elton Report, with periodic attacks from politicians, government departments and quangos on teachers, the performance of schools, and on teacher education. In consequence the present government's own chair of the education and employment select committee has warned that teaching is now seen as a 'second-rate profession' (Times Educational Supplement, February 20, 1998. p. 2).
The political climate of the 1980s and its embodiment in the 1988 Education Act made the Elton Report inevitable. The impact of the Report, and the policy initiatives which were subsequently influenced by it, were greatly compromised by the so-called educational reforms pursuant to the Act. Indeed, when discussions concerning pupils with problems take place it is never usually long before the negative effects of the Act are introduced. Three elements of the 1988 Act can be implicated in the failure of many schools to effectively implement Elton's recommendations, particularly those which related to the maintenance of 'problem pupils' within the mainstream. Firstly, central government's preoccupation with the establishment of a national curriculum, and the circus of assessment which accompanied it, deflected much teacher attention away from 'social behaviour' as a central issue in learning. Indicative of this is that many teachers appear not to have heard of the Elton Report, and have been unaware of professional development initiatives resulting from funding made available to local education authorities (LEAs) for 'Elton Training'. Given the pace of change and the innovation overload of the period, it is unsurprising that the findings of the Report were largely overlooked.
The 1988 Act also initiated both a devolution of centrally-held LEA resources to individual schools and the introduction of 'open enrolment', whereby parents (and children...) were able to select the school of their choice. These developments combined to herald the arrival of overt competition between schools for both pupils and the funds that accompanied them. In such an environment there are strong indications that many mainstream schools would cease to be willing to accommodate behaviours in children which deviated from the norm, for fear of obtaining the reputation of a 'sink' school (Cooper, 1993). As Armstrong and Galloway (op. cit.) put it,
the very presence of large numbers of children with special needs, particularly where those needs arise from learning and/or behaviour difficulties, may be seen as harmful to a school's performance (p.186).
To these specific concerns may be added two more general factors. In terms of its demography, the SEN population (and, axiomatically, those who are ascertained to have an EBD, and many others who are regarded to be 'pupils with problems') in schools is spatially located in (principally) those parts of urban or metropolitan regions which had high scores of indicators of disadvantage (Bash, Coulby & Jones, 1985). Such schools, although they frequently have concentrations of pupils with EBD-related SENs, are often not well-placed to respond to the needs of such students, whether in terms of curriculum provision or in terms of support work utilising external agencies. Neither are they attractive to influential middle-class parents whose children may be expected to be high-achievers in school. A second, closely related, factor is the high incidence of problematic school-behaviour in children from socially and economically disadvantaged populations. Further, there is evidence that some groups, notably Afro-Caribbean children, have been disproportionately represented in recent statistics on exclusions (Parsons & Howlett, op. cit.). Each factor implies that a 'cycle of disadvantage' (Rutter & Madge, 1976) obtains, adding to the complexity of the task facing teachers in the post-Elton period.
How teachers work with pupils with problems
Two groups of ten teachers, presently working in mainstream (primary and secondary), special schools and units, took part in four round-table discussion sessions about their beliefs, working practices and views about likely future developments in the education of pupils with problems. The teachers were all identified at random from schools in two local education authorities (LEAs) in central England. All of the teachers had a post of responsibility which brought them into regular official contact with pupils who were viewed as having emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). The two groups met on four separate occasions, and each discussion lasted approximately 45 minutes. Whilst the discussion was open-ended, in that the conversation was allowed to develop naturally to cover a range of related topics, the focus was mainly upon the complex and demanding issue of the inclusion of 'EBD' pupils within mainstream settings. With this end in view, therefore, a set of core questions was used as the conversation framework. Each of the discussions was recorded, and the transcripts were subsequently made available to the teachers for the purposes of checking meaning and eliciting permission for the use of extracts in subsequent published accounts.
Much of the literature on EBD children refers to three types of intervention strategy, based on behavioural, psychodynamic or ecosystemic approaches. It is important to recognise that these strategies are not mutually exclusive. Most teachers will adopt a 'pick and mix' attitude to them, perhaps using parts of the behavioural approach alongside elements of ecosystemic practice, as the teacher-commentaries contained in this section of the paper suggest. Only rarely will a whole school subscribe to one particular approach: such instances tend usually to be in special schools or units, where the size of the institution enables a single model to be operationalised more easily. Furthermore, this brief overview presents merely the most common interpretation of each approach, there being many adaptations and derivatives, many of which are informed by local conditions within a given school.
i. Behavioural Approaches The Behavioural approach is based upon early theories of learning. Its proponents argue that, as all behaviour (good or bad) is learned, it can be unlearned. Typically this involves the use of learning either acceptable responses or unlearning responses which are not acceptable. It is also characterised by an emphasis on behaviours which are measurable (i.e. which can be observed) rather than upon the mental processes (causes) which prompt the behaviour in the first place. Consequently, formal assessment using time or event sampling plays a crucial role prior to intervention. Many of the strategies subsequently adopted are well known, and figure to some extent in every teacher's practice: time-out, behaviour contracts, token economies and targeted punishment are good examples.
Behavioural approaches are an attractive proposition to teachers at the present time, given that much of the literature (and the hearsay evidence) suggests that they offer more hope of immediate impact than other interventions. Izzie said that 'We use behavioural approaches...though we don't call them that...mainly because of a lack of time and because we get little external support' , also stating that 'It has been very successful in a short time span; we are pleased that we have committed ourselves to it'. Several other teachers in the discussion teachers found that this way of working has enabled them to develop effective interventions with 'problem children', as Kathy reports: 'I have found successes in using the behavioural approach - in setting targets for a whole class and for an individual child. It shows that certain behaviours are the concern, not the child himself, and allows behaviour to be monitored and rewards given'.
Nevertheless, the Warnock Report (1978) expressed concern about 'behaviour modification' used as an exclusive means of managing children, given that it implied that the teacher always knows best. Behavioural approaches continue to prompt feelings of suspicion, even hostility, amongst many teachers. One of the sources of uncertainty is the belief that intervening to change certain behaviours in children (and adults) seriously jeopardises the rights of the individuals concerned. Moreover, the argument is frequently made that, as an approach to human interaction, it is too simplistic and mechanistic, and is incapable of securing long-term improvements in difficult behaviour. Certainly there is some support for the view which suggests that using this approach relies upon external controls on behaviour; once these are removed the unwanted behaviours are likely to return.
Connie typifies these criticisms, remarking that 'My own reservations with regard to the behavioural approach is that it is based on extrinsic rewards. It is imposed on the child without true negotiation. It is not focusing on the context in which these behaviours are occurring. It distracts from the real causes of behaviour. The are of behaviour modification has already raised ethical questions regarding treatments used in attention deficit disorder'. Her remarks need to be considered in a developing context of advocacy in special education in general, and with pupils with problems in particular (Garner & Sandow, op. cit.; Davie & Galloway, op. cit.). Certainly, it may be argued that the child's participation in decision-making is a concept which has little relevance to extreme applications of behavioural intervention, such as assertive discipline (Canter & Canter, 1977), some renditions of which are more akin to the use mind-controlling drugs with troublesome pupils.
ii. Psychodynamic / Psychotherapeutic Approaches This perspective adopts the view that problem behaviour has its source in the unconscious or sub-conscious thoughts of children. It argues that even the earliest experiences of infants will have an effect on their emotional response to their environment. Psychodynamic theory originated with Freud, who sought to enable patients to review their 'life history' in order to reconstruct meanings for their present behaviour. For the EBD child, the psychodynamist argues, the inner world of emotions has remained largely unchanged since early childhood, resulting in a failure to adapt to the outer world. At the outset, however, it is important to preface this brief discussion with a word of caution. The approaches which might be considered under the collective heading of 'psychodynamic intervention' are numerous and often in themselves highly controversial. It is not the intention, in this brief section, to provide even a moderately extensive survey of this huge field of activity; rather, it's purpose is to obtain an intuitive feel for the perceptions of a group of teachers regarding the general orientation of this style of intervention.
Because strategies involving a psychodynamic orientation are extremely complex and usually require long-term training, there has been considerable reluctance, even prejudice, regarding its widespread adoption in educational settings. Evelyn felt that '...because we are overloaded with other work the prospect of spending hours with a pupil discussing his past is totally unreasonable'. A similar theme is identified by Arthur, who talks about the external pressures on him to 'get a result': 'If I was visited by an (OFSTED) inspector and I was not in full control of my class all of the time I'd be identified as failing; supposing I was just a few months into a therapeutic programme. Would the inspector understand that it takes time? I don't think so'.
One understandable point of reluctance to become involved in the psychodynamic process is that many teachers (rightly) regard a child's emotional state as a kind of secret garden, into which only highly trained personnel can go. They have a fear that '...suppressed feelings will be raised and they (teachers) will not have the necessary "specialist" skills to deal with them. This will end up creating a lot of other concerns for the pupil so that, in the end, you have done more harm than good'' (Mandy).
In some ways it is reassuring that this group of teachers were reluctant to assume ownership of interventions that, by their own admittance, they knew very little about. Moreover, there was a corresponding acceptance that, were the resources available - either through the allocation of trained counsellors to schools or by substantive, financially supported in-service training, then these kinds of interventions might be of more significance. Izzie summarised a collective viewpoint by stating that 'I think we all realise that many of our pupils have baggage they carry around, which influences their behaviour...these kinds of approaches could be helpful - but again it comes down to having to pay for something...'. As psychodynamic approaches are invariably medium to long-term initiatives the net effect on a school is that a large slice of its training and support-service budget can be tied up, without guarantee of any amelioration in a child's behaviour, a point which found universal acceptance amongst the discussants.
iii. Ecosystemic Approaches Those who support an ecosystemic view of problem behaviour would argue that all children belong to a set of sub-systems. Their behaviour (whether good or bad) is a product of interactions within and between these systems. Bronfenbrenner (1979) was highly influential in applying ecosystems to the study of human behaviour and, in particular, education. He argued that the world of the child comprised a microsystem (the child himself), the child and his teacher and classmates (the mesosystem), the child and his relationship to school as a whole and to parents and outside agencies (the exosystem), and finally the child in relation to the cultural, social and educational values and beliefs of the world in general (the macrosystem). Problematic behaviour occurs when there is a dysfunction between them.
Although not directly referring to education, Bronfenbrenner inferred that a successful exchange between teacher and child in any given setting would have benefits for the whole system, an issue of considerable importance to schools. The approach has subsequently become popular in the field of emotional and behavioural difficulties (Cooper, 1993; Ayers, Clarke & Murray, 1995) and is also strongly linked to the concept of school effectiveness. In the case of the latter one of the critical strategies for ensuring school success is the whole-school orientation; an ecosystemic approach to problem behaviour is precisely that, but without the rhetoric...
One of the advantages of the ecosystemic approach is that it prompts teachers to view the wider picture, and thus to examine the function of a pupil's behaviour in terms not just of the child himself but also in respect of the organisation as a whole. To recall a view expressed periodically throughout this book, it provides a major opportunity to create the conditions for a 'thinking school'. Izzie was enthusiastic about the potential of this approach: '...if we can use it to get everyone thinking along the same lines then it would be excellent. I suppose what appeals to me is that senior management are not just involved to make the rules. They are as integral to what goes on as the behaviour of pupils themselves'. Even Kathy, who had previously expressed strong opinions regarding the efficacy of behavioural approaches, felt that the ecosystemic orientation had something to offer: 'Environments, expectations and interactions must equally be considered in assessing behaviour. If we wish to alter behaviour we need to consider changes to all aspects rather than assuming the child has a problem'.
There is, within the ecosystemic approach, a fairly explicit commitment to inter- and intra professional cooperation. This, however, may be the model's Achilles heel, in view of the resource implications that such activities imply. The teachers participating in this discussion were quick to point this out: Pete felt that 'The chances of making things work even within a school are limited because of lack of time. I have trouble getting free time to see an EWO (education welfare officer) even now; would we be given time to make the links that this theory suggests'.
A crude quantitative measure of these data indicates that:
Inclusive strategies for pupils with problems
(i) The views of the teachers The teachers who participated in the initial phase of data-gathering were contacted shortly after the publication of the Index of Inclusion (op. cit.) and a further series of interviews were undertaken. The focus of these was placed upon the extent to which the preferred behaviour management approach of these teachers was able to contribute towards inclusive thinking in their schools. The data used in this section of the paper is still being processed, and what is presented here are a series of initial generalisations from a preliminary interpretation of the transcripts.
A preliminary discussion question sought to ascertain the views of this group regarding the efficacy of 'inclusive education' for pupils who exhibited EBD-type behaviour. What was immediately clear from transcript analyses of these conversations was the paradox between individual expectations and beliefs and what were the more generally held beliefs of the school community. Thus, most of these teachers felt that it was appropriate that all children should be supported in mainstream schools, and that inclusion was a practical and desirable outcome for EBD pupils. One teacher felt that 'These pupils have always been put down…so to speak…and it's about time that it was really realised that they can be educated in a mainstream class…it's their right to (do so) (Martin), a view which found resonance at numerous points in these transcripts.
But these teachers expressed less hope of a more general shift towards a positive view of EBD children amongst their colleagues. 'I would be very anxious if our (school) drive for a more inclusive approach was left in the hands of____________(named teacher) because he just does not see EBD pupils has having a rightful place here' (Kathy) was the kind of view frequently expressed by these teachers. Another respondent argued that 'We have to go very carefully for the sake of some of these kids…the whole thing could really rebound in our face', (Paul) suggesting that many mainstream teachers are only at the initial stages of getting to grips with the implications of an inclusive approach. Such comments could be regarded as anecdotal and potentially misleading if it were not for the fact that analysis of the transcript accounts at this stage of the study revealed that 14 out of 20 commentaries contained inferences or explicit remarks that many mainstream colleagues would be resistant to a more fully (i.e. EBD) inclusive approach in their school.
Each of the individual approaches to managing pupil behaviour was likely to contribute something towards establishing conditions whereby EBD pupils could be effectively sustained within the mainstream. This should not necessarily be regarded as unusual, even taking into account the fact that the broad orientations mapped in the first part of this paper comprise very different strategies. What becomes clear is that it is the individual teacher's belief that inclusion is a viable and worthwhile aim which becomes the crucial factor. The 20 teachers in this study hold a positive view of inclusion for the groups of young people that they work with. Of their number 11 regarded full inclusion as a desirable and obtainable aim within the next five years. A further 5 felt that inclusion, whilst being desirable, would not be achieved for EBD pupils until much later on. The remainder of these teachers felt that inclusion depended so much on the attitudes of teachers, parents and society as a whole that it was more likely that further segregation would be forthcoming.
For those teachers who adopted more 'behavioural' approaches there were some obvious benefits which contributed towards the inclusion of EBD pupils. One was the use of targets : 'I've had good success with targeting behaviours. I think that it is the only justifiable way of securing cooperation on the part of EBD children. They can't be included if they behave badly, so it's a means to an end' (Izzie). The use of targets was felt to be especially helpful in convincing colleagues that some positive initiatives could be developed. Thus, one respondent (Francine), said that 'This approach (Behaviour targets) gives my colleagues some sense of hope that something can be done. Nobody likes to fight lost causes, so it contributes quite a lot towards the thinking'.
Moreover, several of the teachers who utilised behavioural approaches felt that this way of working was in tune with some of the explicit content of the Index of Inclusion (op. cit.): 'I just look at the Index (of Inclusion, 2000) and feel that what I offer is in keeping with the discipline aspects of their dimensions'.
The approach which has been generally described as psychdynamic in this paper was also seen by a smaller number of these teachers as likely to be able to contribute towards the development of more inclusive strategies. Given that 'inclusion' as an educational concept is largely in its infancy one of the most important components of policy formulation is talking things through. So one teacher (Arthur) observes that 'If you look at the way I operate you'll see that a key aspect of it is 'talk'. I think that so much of the behaviour management stuff in inclusion is about understanding another person's point of view. Talking enables that'. Moreover, it is the spirit of open-ness and an absence of judgementalism that, for some, constitute the main benefits for inclusion of a more psychodynamic operation: 'We'll never be able to include if we don't feel supported in our struggles with certain youngsters. That means being open and supportive to everybody'.
Those teachers who subscribe to an n ecosystemic way of working are equally sure that benefits can accrue from its underpinning principles. Pete, for instance, felt that 'The best thing about this approach is that it demands that we look at children in the round so to speak. As a staff we have to consider what these children bring with them to school. For many of the young people I work with this is a hell of a lot…(mainly) baggage that they and we could do without'. Other teachers who are more 'ecosystemic' in their orientation appear to be convinced of the important contribution that it can make. Two transcript examples are from Tom ('To include EBD children you have to have allies. Staff have to feel supported…there has to be boundaries for everybody, but at the end of the day we are all pushing for the same thing') and from Hazel ('I think that the ecosystemic approach more or less fits in with a proper interpretation of what a 'whole school' approach should really be. Yes…I think that both things are totally in tune with 'inclusion').
(ii) The views of the pupils A series of discussions are taking place with pupils from the schools in which the teacher-respondents work. The pupils have been identified from those who are presently on the Register of SEN on account of their 'emotional and behavioural difficulties' (either at Stages 1 -3 of the Code of Practice or, in the case of three pupils, those who have a 'statement' of SEN). Permission of both parents/legal carers and the school was sought after an agreement to participate was obtained from the pupil. Again, these data are presently being assembled and evaluated; only a brief set of initial observations can in consequence be presented at this stage. Nonetheless there are some early indications that these pupils regard the strategies adopted by their teachers to be helpful in maintaining their position within the mainstream.
But the over-riding impression is that it is less the teacher-strategy that is important in providing these pupils with the necessary support, more a sense of teacher-pupil identity or relationship. One of the pupils indicates that 'Mr_____________ (teacher name) gets me off the hook a lot of the time…he's the only one of them (teachers) that I trust not to take the piss', whilst also observing that 'He (same teacher) is tough with us and he don't stand messing with…you get decent things if you behave, but you're in trouble if you don't' , inferring the behavioural orientation of his teacher.
The pre-eminence and value placed on this relationship is amplified by Leo, who feels that 'I can really talk to her, even when I'm really angry…that;'s nothing I could do with other teachers here, because they'd just lose it with you'. Rather poignantly, and as a summary view of the importance placed upon the quality of relationships, Keith maintains that 'I'd have been out of here by now if I didn't have Miss_______ (teacher) and Mr________(teacher). They are good…sort things out…stick up for me when somebody is just screaming in my face. Yes…I wouldn't stand a chance here without them'.
One of the potentially significant issues in these data is that the pupils locate their teacher as the mediator between 'being included' and the 'non-inclusive system'. There is sufficient evidence in this emergent data to suggest that many of the EBD pupils involved in this study would favour a continuation of their 'mainstream' placement, but not at the expense of conforming fully to a set of protocols that alienate them. Two transcript extracts illustrate this dilemma (and opportunity): 'All my mates are here…and I have a good time. I don't get into much trouble, but most of it…is just harmless…fooling around (that) they can't take…because they've always got to win. If it was down to a choice between following stupid rules…not being listened to…I'd just clear off. Nobody is going to push me about no more' (Vincent)
'I rely on Mrs__________(teacher). Some of the time she can piss me off…loads of stuff that I have to do and I can't see the point…but (then)…she'll defend me…won't let them take advantage or treat me like I don't exist. It's sort of a thing…that I can shout as loud as I like…scream at them and …nobody listens. But then she can speak for me. She keeps me here I think' (Sammy)
Summary
The initial interpretation of these unfolding transcripts, and further consideration of the teacher commentaries suggest that inclusive strategies for EBD pupils will be best generated by:
Each of these represents a potentially problematic aspect of provision and practice. Many teachers working in mainstream settings may be less tolerant of the behaviour of certain pupils (a view undoubtedly echoed by society). Such views may be linked to an attribution of cause; where teachers (or others) feel that the 'blame' for certain kinds of behaviour belongs in the home, or in the child, there may be less inclination on their part to do something about it. Moreover, they are more likely to adopt a punitive response to the pupils concerned.
The debate concerning the interventions which teachers adopt is likely to be ongoing; the same can be said, but with even greater emphasis, of the debate regarding the educational inclusion of pupils with EBD. In participating in the latter it seems essential that the less partisan and precious teachers can be about particular approaches - the notion of 'rubber boundaries (Cole, Visser & Upton, 1998) immediately springs to mind - then the more likely that successful inclusion outcomes can be achieved for pupils with problems (and, incidentally for their teachers…). But in the face of continued professional, official and public scrutiny it may not be easy to establish such conditions.
References
Armstrong, D. and Galloway, D. (1994) 'Special educational needs and problem behaviour: making policy in the classroom', in S. Riddell and S. Brown (eds.) Special Educational Needs Policy in the 1990s. London: Routledge.
Bash, L., Coulby, D. and Jones, C. (1985) Urban Schooling: theory and practice. Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Canter, L. (1982) Assertive Discipline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (2000) Index for Inclusion. Bristol: CSIE.
Clark, C. , Dyson, A., Millward, A. and Skidmore, D. (1995) Innovatory Practice in Mainstream Schools for Special Educational Needs. London: HMSO.
Cole, T., Visser, J. & Upton, G. (1998) Effective Schooling for Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Cooper, P. (1993) Effective Schools for Disaffected Students. London: Routledge.
Department of Education and Science (1989) Inquiry into Discipline in Schools (The Elton Report) , London: HMSO.
Garner, P. (1999) Pupils with Problems: rational fears…radical solutions. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Garner, P. & Sandow, S. (1991) 'The Role of the On Site Behavioural Support Unit' . Support for Learning, Vol.6, No.4.
Lowenstein, L. (1975) Violent and Disruptive Behavior in Schools. Hemel Hempstead: NAS/UWT.
O'Hear, A. (1988) Who Teaches the Teachers? London: Social Affairs Unit.
Parsons, C. and Howlett, K. (1996) 'Permanent exclusions from school: A case where society is failing its children'. Support for Learning, 11 (3), 109-112.
Rutter, M. & Madge, N. (1976) Cycles of Disadvantage. London: Heinemann.
Turkington, R. (1986) In Search of the Disruptive Pupil: Problem Behaviour in Secondary Schools 1959-1982. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Sociology, University of Leeds.
 |
 |