Declaration Attribution
Theory
Andy Allen
www.yearofreading.org.uk
Run by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the year-long celebration of books
will provide new opportunities for reluctant readers to access support through schools and
libraries.
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls, said:
"I want this year to kick start a change in the way we all view reading and for us
all to regain a love of reading and pass it on to the next generation. Parents can be
key in leading this renaissance by making time to read with their children every day when
they are young and encouraging them to carry on reading as they get older - just a few
minutes every day can make a real difference."
Declaration Theory
The West Dunbartonshire Literacy Initiative
2000-2001
Tommy MacKay 2006
Sample
• 565 pupils (320 pre school and 245 primary 1)
• 6 experimental establishments 6 control
• Schools matched for socio-economic status and
included schools with high and low levels of
disadvantage
• 9 week intervention
MacKay’s Aims
• To change children’s expectations regarding
their future levels of reading achievement
• To enhance their attitudes towards reading
• To raise their levels of reading achievement
through changing their attitudes and
expectations
Declarations
• A statement about positive future levels of
reading achievement and enjoyment of books
and reading
• Three times a day, in either an individual, group
or class situation
• Declarations supported through use of props
(puppets)
Measures
• Baseline assessment
• Concepts of Print
• Phonological Awareness - Nursery Rhymes
Initial Letter Sounds
• Rhyme Detection
• Rhyme Production
• Early Reading Skills – Lower Case Letter Sounds
The Alphabet
Letter Names
Non-word Reading Test
Word Reading Test
Mackay’s Findings
Nursery
Nursery rhymes
Rhyme production
Letter sounds
Primary
Nursery rhymes
Rhyme production
Letter sounds
Non-word reading
Word reading
Teachers gave experimentals higher post
intervention ratings for range of reading
characteristics including: Progress, showing
promise, confidence, interest and enjoyment
Experimentals developed more positive
attitude to reading – pupil self assessment and
supported by teacher and pupil interviews
‘It is concluded that the simple act of
making declarations about future
levels of reading achievement has a
beneficial effect on attitude and
performance’
MacKay (2006)
The Beginning
End
Declarations
• I’m going to…
• I’m going to be a good ….
Areas of Psychology
• Attitudes, self-concept and self-esteem
• Expectations or 'expectancy’
• Cognitive dissonance
• Social and interactive learning
• Motivation
• Attributions
• Goal setting
• Self-efficacy
• Visual imagery
‘Building the
evidence’
Brooks and NFER (2007)
121 Literacy Interventions
Only 30 used control groups
Direct Phonics (Reason 2004)
only data of 24 children in
Middlesbrough ‘made modest
progress’
Limitations
• Sampled 12 schools - 54 children final pre and
post test (27 experimental 27 control)
• Intervention V control schools - matching?
• High profile EP working within intervention
schools
• 9 week intervention
• Media coverage of schools in intervention
group
• Whole school involvement – Headteachers /
SMT visiting to see declarations
Without any
direct ‘reading
intervention’
Aims of first study
To replicate MacKay’s study and address
suggested limitations
Limitations
• Sampled 12 schools - 54 children final pre and
post test (27 experimental 27 control)
• Intervention V control schools - matching?
• High profile EP working within intervention
schools
• 9 week intervention
• Media coverage of schools in intervention
group
• Whole school involvement – Headteachers /
SMT visiting to see declarations
Are puppets
crucial to
declarations?
Hypotheses
Children engaging in declaration will make
significantly more progress in reading assessments
than those in the control group
Children having the puppet as class icon for
declaration will make significantly more progress in
reading assessments than those in the declaration
only
Sample
• 667 Reception and Year 1 Primary children,
184 measured pre and post test
• 4 Schools with 3 classes per year group
• 9 week intervention
Selection
• Schools selected by having 3 classes per year
groups in Leics. Convenient locality to ensure
fidelity.
• Each class in each year group randomly
assigned experimental condition
• 8 pupils (4 boys and 4 girls) randomly selected
from each class for pre and post testing
Numbers of classes in each condition across the 4 schools total
sample number of pupils in brackets
Declaration
Declaration
Control
with puppet without
puppet
Year
R
4 (32)
4 (32)
4(32)
1
4(32)
3(24)
4 (32)
(64)
(56)
(64)
Class
Year
Class
TOTAL
Intervention training
• Staff training at Inset
• Individual training in intervention
for staff in experimental classes
• Record books and Sample
declarations given
• Weekly visits to ensure intervention
was carried out
Declarations
Three times a day, in either an individual, group or class
situation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examples include:
General declarations for future achievements
I will become a very good reader.
I will enjoy reading.
I will read lots of books.
I will know lots of rhymes.
I will know all the letters in the alphabet.
I will listen to stories.
I will know the different ways of being a good reader.
I will become very good at writing.
More specific declarations of future
achievements (Individual)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I will learn to write my name.
I will be able to say all my letter sounds
I will know all the words in my tin (target words)
I will know my initial letter sounds.
I will know lots of words beginning with A (B,C…).
I will know lots of words that rhyme with dog..
I will know all the letters in my name
I will be able to read X book
•
•
•
•
•
Enjoyment of reading
I like books-books are fun.
I want to take a book home to read.
I like reading to my mum (carer).
I like these books-these are the best
I like listening to stories
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teachers reinforcement of declarations, using positive affirmations:
You are all going to be very good readers.
You are all going to know the letters of the alphabet.
You are all going to be able to write your name
You all enjoy reading
You are all very good at listening to stories
You are all going to be very good at writing
You’re all going to know the different ways you can of being a good reader
Means (SD)
Concepts of print
Declaration: D Declaration
by puppet :
DP
2.64 (1.68)
2.30 (1.38)
Nursery rhymes
2.23 (2.14)
Initial letter sounds
Control: C T test for DvC
2 tailed
T test for DP v C
T test for D v DP
2 tailed
2 tailed
1.39 (1.00) T(31) =3.13,
p<0.01
T(46)=2.84, p<0.01 T(47)=0.78, p>0.05
3.59(2.94)
0.94 (1.75) T(53) =2.45,
p<0.05
T(58) =4.34,
p<0.01
T(47)=1.82, p>0.05
2.27 (1.88)
2.15 (1.73)
T(47)=0.24, p>0.05
Rhyme detection
1.43(1.50)
1.39(1.14)
1.06 (1.17) T(32)=2.69. p<0.01 T(44) =2.79,
p<0.01
0.74(1.23) T(53)=2.05,
T(58) =1.72,
p>0.05
p<0.05
Rhyme production
1.23(1.85)
1.44(1.69)
0.18(1.04)
Lower case letter
sounds
The alphabet
10.77(5.75)
9.30(5.86)
5.48(4.47)
5.40(6.32)
6.07(7.68)
0.27(3.42)
Letter names
3.82(3.33)
3.44(3.77)
0.48(1.15)
Non-word reading test 2.91(4.23)
Word reading test
Total of all assessment
2.55(3.53)
35.55(13.97)
3.67(5.04)
2.89(5.03)
36.33(19.01)
0.52(1.64)
0.73(2.27)
T(47) =0.68
p>0.05
T(30)=2.41, p<0.05 T(41)=3.38, p<0.01 T(47) = 0.43,
p>0.05
T(53)=3.83, p<0.01 T(58)=2.86, p<0.01 T(47)=0.89, p>0.05
T(53)=4.31,
T(58)=4.27,
T(47)=0.33, p>0.05
p<0.001
p<0.001
T(30)=3.93, p<0.01 T(24=4.52, p<0.01 T(47)=0.36,
T(25)=2.53,
T(31)=3.12,
p>0.05
T(47)=0.56,
p<0.05
p<0.05
p>0.05
T(33)=2.14,
T(35)=2.07,
T(47)=0.27,
p<0.05
p<0.05
p>0.05
T(58)=6.59,
p<0.001
T(47)=0.16, p>0.05
11.39(9.59) T(53)=7.61,
p<0.001
Means (SD)
Declaration: D
Declaration by
puppet : DP
Control: C
Concepts of print
1.07(0.88)
1.48(0.78)
1.2(1.24)
Nursery rhymes
3.00(1.78)
3.55(2.35)
1.00(1.16)
Initial letter sounds
1.05(1.64)
1.00(1.73)
0.41(1.05)
T test for DvC
T test for DP v C T test for D v DP
2 tailed
2 tailed
2 tailed
T(47)=0.43,
p>0.05
T(47)=4.77,
p<0.01
T(56)=1.89,
p>0.05
T(41) =5.23,
p<0.01
T(47)=0.98,
p>0.05
T(47)=0.89,
p>0.05
T(56)=1.56,
T(47)=1.66,
p>0.05
T(47)=0.10,
p>0.05
T(46) =2.78,
p>0.01
T(47) =0.54
p>0.05
T(47)=2.06,
p<0.05
T(47)=2.77.
p<0.01
T(56)=3.24,
p<0.01
T(44) =3.25,
p<0.01
T(47) = 0.8,
p>0.05
T(47)=0.53,
p>0.05
T(47)=2.07,
p<0.05
T(47)=3.75,
p<0.01
T(56)=1.50,
p>0.05
T(56)=3.62,
p<0.01
T(47)=1.07,
p>0.05
T(47)=0.69,
p>0.05
T(27)=4.24,
T(47)=5.13,
T(47)=0.17,
p<0.01
p<0.01
p>0.05
T(47)=5.06,
T(45)=3.85,
T(47)=0.55,
p<0.01
p<0.01
p>0.05
T(47)=7.48,
p<0.01
T(44)=5.80,
p<0.01
T(47)=0.47,
p>0.05
p>0.05
Rhyme detection
1.10(1.52)
1.31(1.20)
0.59(0.73)
T(47)=1.58,
p>0.05
Rhyme production
2.00(1.84)
2.41(1.74)
0.97(1.66)
Lower case letter
sounds
4.70 (3.33)
5.28(4.03)
2.48 (2.28)
The alphabet
4.85(9.58)
2.59(5.16)
0.90(3.23)
Letter names
8.30(5.01)
7.38(4.24)
3.41(4.10)
Non-word reading
test
7.75(5.01)
7.52(4.44)
2.52(2.79)
Word reading test
11.25(5.29)
Total of all
assessment
45.20(14.24)
10.24(6.86)
42.76(20.11)
4.59(3.93)
17.93(11.24)
Chart to show the Estimated Marginal Means of overall total scores pre and post intervention for
Year R and 1 combined
110
totals
1
2
Estimated Marginal Means
100
90
80
70
60
CONTROL
DECLARATION NO
DECLARATION PUPPET
Could
Declaration
Theory be
improved?
What about pupils
who used
declarations and
made no progress?
Dweck and Repucci (1973) found
that students, who were most likely
to give up in light of failure, were
those that attributed failure due to
ability rather than effort.
Attribution retraining
Carol Dweck 1975
Noted how some students showed extreme
helplessness in response to failure
Amongst other factors, they held their ability to
blame for failure
Attributing failure to lack of effort rather than
ability
These students not only responded better to failure
but ‘persisted at the task more appropriately and
asked appropriately for help rather than giving up’
Attributing success to
effort, in turn, allows
same attribution
(lack of effort) for
failure
Second Study
• Same sample
• Experimental classes changed
• 15 weeks
• Same literacy skills assessed pre and post
• Self-Concept pre and post measure (Joseph
Scale)
• Assessment for attributions for ‘failure’ post
intervention
Three conditions:
Declarations (D) with puppet
Attributional Declarations (AD) with puppet
Control (C)
Previous control group randomly became either
AD or D
Previous declaration without puppet group
became either AD, D or C
Previous declaration with puppet group became
either AD or D
Attributional Declaration Control
Declaration with puppet
with puppet
Year R Class
29
20
29
Year 1 Class
27
23
34
TOTAL
56
43
63
Same intervention as before but a request for
at least 5 declarations per day
Attributional Declarations consisted of
declarations being simply preceded with
‘If I try harder…’ or ‘With more effort…’
Classes (other than controls) were also given
rhymes and chants and encouraged to make
their own
Other measures
Children’s self-rating on four point scale to five
questions
Teachers, pupils and parents views sought through
semi-structured interview post intervention
Teachers and parents ratings of their children’s
literacy skills and enthusiasm for reading pre and
post intervention
Parents views on literacy and reading
questionnaire pre and post intervention
Hypotheses
Children in the attributional declaration group will
make significantly more progress in reading
assessments than those in the declaration only and
control groups
Children in the attributional declaration group are
significantly more likely to attribute failure for lack of
effort rather than lack of ability
Total gains in literacy
Bars show Means
Total gains in literacy
Bars show Means
Fig. 1 Teacher doesn’t like
Fig 2 Teacher likes original
Fig 3 Teacher likes replacement
Fig 4 Hugged by mother
Fig 5 Spanked by mother original
Gains in Self Concept
Estimated Marginal Means of MEASURE_1
JPSCORE
38
Estimated Marginal Means
1
2
37
36
35
34
CONTROL
DECLARATION PUPPET
ATTRIBUTIONAL
DECLARATION
Many teachers expressed a belief that the intervention
had raised self-esteem.
Q: Do you think the intervention effects children’s motivation
to learn and the sense of themselves?
A: Yes definitely, as I say even the ones who are even now still
struggling they are going to have a go and they’re trying.
Sometimes you have to smile at them, when they come out
with completely the wrong thing, you think to yourself well
actually you’ve had a go and that’s something that you
probably wouldn’t have done before’
It is possible, but far from conclusive, that
gains in self-concept scores for children in
the attribution based declaration group may
be down to a possible core shift away from
an ability based attribution, to an effort based
attribution.
No Good
Didn’t Try
Attributing lack of effort for failure
N
Mean
SD
178
0.55
0.50
Declaration 160
0.59
0.49
Declaration 183
0.92
0.20
0.69
0.46
Control
with
attribution
521
Attributing lack of effort for failure
Gains in Self Report Literacy Skills
Bars show Means
T3TOTAL GAINSR
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
CONTROL
ATTRIBUTIONAL DECLARATION
DECLARATION PUPPET
second condition
’In terms of doing the declaration with the whole class like that, it
was good to have a focus and the children still like Lenny, he’s our
literacy lion now, whenever we do literacy they want Lenny so they
really associate him with it.’
A few teachers in the study thought that it was
somehow unfair for children, who they thought were
trying their hardest to read without success, to make
attributional declarations.
‘No, because they are trying their absolute hardest and it’s
still not coming so no, no I wouldn’t do that at all.’
‘We felt as if that was a little bit negative as you could say
and if I try harder that’s taking or assuming that their not
already trying hard’
Brophy (1981) advised that teachers could
be instrumental in development of
student’s internal beliefs by focusing praise
upon attribution of success to effort and
not ability.
Children’s beliefs in declarations
‘Q: Do you think saying I’m going to be a good writer helps
you?
Child: Sort of
Q: How does that help you, do you think?
Child: It helps me because it makes me believe that I’m
going to be a good writer.’
Only one child out of the 40 interviewed
said that he didn’t believe the
declarations
‘Child: I don’t believe it because every time I
normally don’t get a star’
To the question ‘What is a good
reader?’
Not one child answered the
question along the lines of someone
who ENJOYS books,
(though this was the most popular
answer from parents).
Literacy gains by children making declarations with or without
puppets were significantly greater than the controls, though not
significantly different between each other. However:
Majority of teachers believed the puppets to be more helpful in
the declaration delivery and they were particularly beneficial in :
• Providing a focus and engaging children
• Remembering to carry out declarations
• Making the intervention FUN
Someday, I'm gonna be a real boy! A
real boy! It's my wish! ..... I'm going
to be a real boy
Hypotheses results:
• Children engaging in declarations did make
significantly more progress in reading
assessments than those in the control group
• Children having the puppet for declarations did
not make significantly more progress in school
reading assessments than those in the
declaration only
• Children engaging in attributional declarations did
make significantly more progress in reading
assessments than those in the declaration and
control groups
• Children engaging in attributional declarations were
significantly more likely to attribute failure to lack
of effort rather than ability, than both the
declaration and control groups
• In addition, children making attributional
declarations make significantly greater gains in self
concept than declaration and control groups
The End
For Now
Thank you very much for your
attention and participation.
Andy Allen
[email protected]
Excluding Children – New
Perspectives
Dr Christopher Arnold
[email protected]
Starting point:
Exclusion, expulsion, imprisonment,
transportation, removal, incarceration,
internment, exiling, time out, expatriation,
ostracism, banishment, ethnic cleansing,
genocide, apartheid and ultimately, execution
or capital punishment have been used as
methods of social control since records began.
Whatever the term, they share separation as a
social tool.
Four perspectives
•
•
•
•
Historical
Biological
Chaos theory
Italian
Evidence from other species..
Removal as a method of social control is not
limited to human actions. Jane Goodall
discovered the behaviour of female
chimpanzees. They will kill the offspring of
other chimpanzees to maintain dominance.
Evidence from other species..
Further back the evolutionary line, male mice
will kill infants if they are unlikely to be their
offspring. Only if a male mouse copulates
with the female between 56 and 60 days
before the birth, the male will not kill the pup.
The biological incentive for this behaviour is
well understood.
A biological perspective
Loehle (1995) describes the biological perspective for
social avoidance. Behavioural mechanisms are
important for reducing the incidence of disease. If an
animal looks diseased it would be in the interests of
the remaining group to isolate the individual to avoid
transmission of the disease. It is also in the interests of
the sick individual to isolate themselves to avoid the
dangers of contracting additional disease so that their
immune system can concentrate on fighting the
current sickness. Organisms which are capable of
perceiving sickness in individuals are likely to display
these adaptive behaviours.
Exclusion needs
• A perception of threat.
• An assumption of contamination or spread.
• A powerful agent and a weak or less powerful
victim.
Exclusion creates
• Persecutors
• Victims
But a third group emerged:
• Rescuers
Rescuers
Early cloisters were established for the blind, but
records show that in AD370 the bishop of
Caesarea cloistered many types of disabled
together. A few of such institutions were
allocated the “asylum” label. Nicholas, bishop of
Myra (now in Turkey) provided dowries for the
poor and disabled. (He is remembered as Saint
Nicholas or Santa Claus). He established an
institution in Gheel in Belgium where the
disabled children were given work in the fields.
Conclusions
1. Exclusion has a long history, we are unlikely
to rid ourselves of it tomorrow (although we
might rename it).
2. Requires a perception of threat.
3. Creates possible rescuers.
A different perspective:
Chaos theory – behaviour as unstable rather
than just unacceptable.
Things adults say..
• He misbehaves all the time.
• He hits people for no reason.
• When I see him first thing in the morning I just
know we’re in for a bad day
• He seems to kick off at the slightest thing.
Things adults mean..
“He misbehaves all the time.” is better described
“He can misbehave at any time.”
“He hits people for no reason.” Could be “I cannot
see any reason why he hits.”
“..in for a bad day.” Becomes “ I can see from the
start, that he is different from previous days and I
don’t know why.”
“..kick off at the slightest thing.” Becomes
“sometimes he kicks off and sometimes he does
not. I can’t see why.”
Conclusion..
The common feature of these is the
unpredictability of the problem behaviour. In
other words, the children’s behaviour is
unstable.
Four necessary and sufficient features:
• Learning is an Iterative process. The output from
one learning cycle acts as the input for the next.
• At least three (but ideally lots more) items
competing for the attention of the learner.
• Attention is a finite commodity. If you are
attending to (or learning) one thing, you are
attending less to another.
• There are no large scale, predetermined forces or
architectures which determine what is learned.
Features of unstable systems..
• Sudden jumps and changes in children’s learning and behaviour.
• Delayed effects of different kinds of teaching and experiences.
• Variation in uncertainty in the course of development. There will be
times when learning and behaviour appears steady and almost
linear and other times when it appears almost random and variable.
• A limit to the extent you can predict future learning and behaviour.
The term “prediction horizon” has been used to describe this.
• At each level of analysis more detail becomes visible.
• There will be greater variability before and after a sudden change.
These “chaotic markers” can signal a sudden change.
In children this means..
• Children can change their behaviour quite quickly.
• Apparently insignificant events can become highly
significant later on.
• Things can appear to be going well for a time, but can
change quickly.
• It’s impossible to predict (anticipate) more than the
immediate future.
• There is never a full analysis – each level of explanation
can be added to. You never get “the full story”
• There are signals to be detected just before something
big happens. Things take a little time to calm down
following a big change.
Sources of instability in children’s
behaviour
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Death of parent.
Separation of parents.
Illness or injury.
Change in health of member of family.
New family members (reconstituted families)
Birth of sibling.
Arguments between parents.
Cf other tables..
• Death of spouse
• Divorce
• Marital Separation
• Jail Term
• Death of close family member
• Personal injury or illness
• Marriage
• Fired at work
• Marital Reconciliation
(Heart attack risk factors)
100
73
65
63
63
53
50
47
45
31 Permanently excluded children
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mental Health Problems
SEN
LAC
Single parent
Disabled parent
Domestic violence
Parental rejection
Substance misuse
Mental health
Behaviour management
Child Protection Register
No fixed abode/rough sleeping
Risk of sexual exploitation
(Pitchford,M 2006 personal communication)
8
14
1
11
5
8
14
4
4
18
8
4
3
Increasing instability
For children there are sources of instability which may be associated
with introducing an IBP:
•Sudden change in amount of adult attention.
•Inability to be part of the crowd. No reference group or experience of
implications.
•Sudden increase in number of adults ‘involved’
•Each adult may have different ideas about what their role is. From the
child’s perspective there is confusion about different expectations
with different adults.
Each of these elements can actually increase instability for the child.
Linear change..
Non-linear change
Non linear systems change in non linear ways.
Stages of change (Van Geert 1994)
• Interest contagion (honeymoon). There is enthusiasm
for IBP. Pupil finds lots of opportunities to earn
rewards. He/she tries really hard.
• Saturation (boredom). Novelty begins to wear off.
Child becomes rather used to rewards and even bored
by them.
• Recovery (regression). Child begins to ignore
programme and return to old habits. Child tests the
system. Is this new system consistent for the child?
Graphical representation
Real world example
An uncomfortable truth?
Our processes around exclusion actually
increase instability in those children who
probably most need stability.
So…..
Is exclusion from school inevitable?
Italy’s system -a challenge
• Italy outlawed exclusion in 1977. (cf. UK and
corporal punishment 1987)
• All educational establishments are fully
inclusive.
Differences in thinking…
Consider the following:
• If I have an apple, I also have an orange. If I
have a pear, I also have a kiwi fruit. If I have a
pineapple, I also have a melon.
• I have a kiwi fruit. What is also true?
Any offers? Discuss with partner – 2
minutes
Logic table (wrong)
Kiwi
Not kiwi
Pear
Not pear
True
Not true
Not true
True
Logic table (right)
Kiwi
Not kiwi
Pear
Not pear
True
True
Not true
True
Other examples
Psychology for teaching assistants.. v Psychology
Express checkouts in supermarkets.. v all checkouts.
There are two sorts of educational establishments, mainstream and special.
Mentally we think of children having special needs or no special needs. The
logic table is simple:
Special school
Mainstream school
Child with special needs
Yes
No
Child with no special
needs
No
Yes
It is the existence of the special school that creates an impression that the
mainstream school is not appropriate for a child with special needs. Yet that
is not necessarily the case. The logic table is actually:
Special school
Mainstream school
Child with special needs
Yes
Yes
Child with no special
needs
No
Yes
So…..
If no special schools exist, no one thinks of them
as a solution to any particular problem!
Key factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legislation
No market in education
No competition between schools
No publication of key performance indicators
No focus on narrow, easily measured factors
No external inspection framework (OfStEd)
Comparative stats: (Nationmaster.com)
Measure
UK
Italy
Average number of years adults spent in school
9.4
7.2
Duration of compulsory education
12
9
Duration of primary education
6
5
Duration of secondary education
7
8
Educational spending (%GDP)
5.3
4.7
Educational attainment – tertiary
26%
10%
Literacy – total population
99%
98.6%
Mathematical literacy
529
457
Reading Literacy
523
487
Scientific literacy
532
478
Student attitude – dislike of school
28%
38%
Student attitude – find school boring
54%
54%
Student attitude – report class disorder
27%
46%
Tertiary enrolment
59.5%
49.9%
Are they less well behaved?
Italy
• Not completing their work
• Parents not being available
• Groups of children forming
gangs and disrupting
lessons
• Children not bringing the
appropriate equipment
• Children not listening to the
teachers (Arnold 2009)
UK
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Talking out of turn
Hindering other people
Making unnecessary noise
Physical aggression
Getting out of seat
Work avoidance
Rowdiness
Verbal abuse
(Elton report 1989)
Classroom behaviour
• In the UK sample the mean on-task was
72.3% (SD = 16)
• In the Italian sample the mean on-task was
86% (SD= 12.5)
• In the UK sample the mean talking/listening to pupils
was
15.5% (SD = 13.5)
• In the Italian sample the mean talking/listening to
pupils was
9.75% (SD = 10.7)
(Arnold 2009)
So what do they do?
•
•
•
•
Grade retention (1.1% for behaviour)
Class councils
Parental links
Naming and shaming (truancy)
Potential gains (1)
• After the policy became embedded, there is likely to be a
reduction in children seeking to be excluded and “working
their passage” towards it. This is as likely to improve
behaviour in school as create a decline.
• There would be a marked reduction in children not in the
school system. Although there is considerable governmental
guidance on processes for children excluded from school,
confusions and conflicts between different kinds of secondary
schools (e.g. Foundation Schools, National Challenge schools)
can lead excluded children to be out of school/education for
extended periods of time because of limitations in capacity.
Often such children are invisible to the wider educational
system (LA).
Potential gains (2)
• Overall supervision of children and young people would be
centralised in school rather than distributed between
schools/PRUs and LAs. Given the vulnerable nature of children
who are excluded, this would probably represent a huge
reduction in unsupervised children.
• A co-ordination of services around schools. Although there
are moves in the UK to do this now, the continued use of
exclusion (including processes such as managed moves)
ultimately places the responsibility with LAs rather than
schools.
• A redefining of the work found in PRUs as appropriate for
some children, some of the time without having to go through
the damaging process of exclusion to access the services. This
is beginning to occur now in some settings.
Potential risks
• In any new structure there will be some children who will test
the system. Those who have some experience of permanent
exclusion (e.g. elder siblings) may attempt to get themselves
permanently excluded in order to avoid school. This could
lead to some very difficult situations in the early stages.
• The school/group of schools/LA could be perceived as a
“sump” in which only difficult children are educated. This
perception could be promoted not only by parents, but an
unsympathetic press. If there are difficult incidents in the
early stages, the press may highlight these to the detriment of
the school/group of schools/ LA.
• The school could be used by other schools which do exclude
as a placement for their most difficult children. This could
work at the level of single school, groups of schools or LAs.
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Large scale architecture (plans).
Institutional support.
Stability over time.
Consistency of personnel.
A philosophy of social inclusion.
Empathy.
The commercial:
Arnold,C., Yeomans, J. and Simpson, S. (2009)
Excluded from School: Complex Narratives and
Psychological Perspectives
Trentham Press
Arnold,C. (2009) Italy’s alternatives to exclusion
www.educationalpublications.sandwell.gov.uk
(it’s free!)
Children.
Beyond our normal
constructs………….
By Dr Jennifer Barry
Northumberland County Council
Objectives for session
Summarise my research
Address the possible implications of my
research to the profession of
Educational Psychology
Consider how these implications may
impact your everyday role.
Contents
Research Title
Who are young carers?
Why this group is important?
3 main research questions
Main findings
Implications for EP work
Recommendations for further actions
Research Title
Young Carers: When children perform
adult roles
Examining the construct of the child
within children’s services and the role of
the Educational Psychologist in meeting
the needs of children beyond that
construct.
Young carers?
Carers are children and young persons under 18
who provide or intend to provide care, assistance
or support to another family member. They carry
out, often on a regular basis, significant or
substantial caring tasks and assume a level of
responsibility, which would usually be associated
with an adult. The person receiving care is often a
parent but can be a sibling, grandparent or other
relative who is disabled, has some chronic illness,
mental health problem or other condition
connected with a need for care, support or
supervision” in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of
Social Work (Becker, 2000, p.378).
“
Young Carers?
2001 census indicated 175,000 in the UK.
Research has suggested this is significantly
under-represented.
Hidden Population: It has been said that a
more accurate figure is 4-10% of all children
in the UK which would mean that anywhere
between 350,000 and 1 million children could
be involved in caring (Becker & Becker, 2000).
Why this research is important to
local authorities
Highlights need for co-ordinated working between
children and adults services.
Recent Joint Area Reviews have asked authorities about
their provision for YCs, indicating the growing awareness
of their different needs.
Categorised as “diverse and hard to reach C&YP” in the
Every Child Matters document.
Recent growth in media interest sparking debate about
the effectiveness of service provision.
Young caring roles may affect their ability to access and
fully take part in full-time education.
Why this research is important for
EPs
I believe there is a role for EPs in meeting
their needs.
Systemic multi-agency working within
organisations
EPs work with individuals, schools and
families–holistic approach to meeting the
needs of whole families.
EPs are likely to meet unidentified young
carers in their working role.
Why was this research important
to me
No examples of research by EPs evident in
two main peer-reviewed journals whilst
widely researched by social policy journals
Challenged assumptions about childhood
Round holes / Square pegs regarding service
access
‘One size fits all’ concerns
Are they just one example of children against
the mainstream construction?
My 3 main research questions
1.
2.
3.
Do Young Carers feel that service
provision meets their needs?
What would the young carer like to
change?
How can the EP role help to facilitate a
better delivery of services to meet the
Young Carers’ needs.
Data collection methods
Preliminary contacts and exploration
Establishing links with YC groups in the
North East
Focus Groups
Transcription
Analysis
How do young carers feel?
supported
happy
secretive
isolated
stable
proud
unsupported
loved
Ask us!
unhappy
unstable
Excerpt from ‘The subtle knife’
“So he kept his mother’s troubled secret. There were times
when she was calmer and clearer than others, and he took care
to learn from her then how to shop and cook and keep the
house clean, so that he could do it when she was confused and
frightened. And he learned how to conceal himself too, how to
remain unnoticed at school, how not to attract attention from
the neighbours, even when his mother was in such a state of
fear and madness that she could barely speak. What Will feared
more than anything was that the authorities would find out
about her, and take her away, and put him in a home among
strangers. Any difficulty was better than that. Because there
were times when the darkness cleared from her mind, and she
was happy again, and she laughed at her fears and blessed him
for looking after her so well; and she was so full of love and
sweetness then that he could think of no better companion, and
wanted nothing more than to live with her alone for ever.”
Hearing their voices
“Everything’s seen as
an excuse when
you’re at school and
‘cos they don’t know,
they won’t believe
you ‘cos you haven’t
said anything about
it.”
“They tell you that they
know what you’re
going through but they
don’t. I think it’s like a
line that’s easy to say.”
“They just think you’re a kid don’t
they? They just think you’re a kid and
you go out and everything”.
“I don’t want to
tell them things
to strangers!”
“I don’t think I could
tell any of my
teachers cos they
all talk.”
Hearing their voices
“As a young carer,
you’re all the same, but
different at the same
time.
The
main
differences
are
the
situation you’re in and
maybe
the
person
you’re caring for is
different as well”.
“My mams got problems
and so has me brother
and then I’ve also got
problems. There’s always
someone round so I
spend a lot of time off
school. I’ve missed loads
of school, like me”.
“I find [homework] difficult to get
done ‘cos I look after my dad all
night and it gets dead late before I
can get it done”.
“…they just don’t listen to what
you’ve got to say. They think
they’re bigger and more in
authority than us, so they just
take it!!”
“You’re too busy and
not putting time into
your exams so you
don’t get the grade
expected”.
Did young carers feel that
services provided were adequate?
Not enough consistency
Problems treated in isolation
Lack of understanding
Need for discretion
What young carers wanted to
change
Opportunities for consultation
Greater understanding in school
Treatment like any other young person
Access to generic clubs and activities
What young carers wanted to
change
Opportunities to access daily and afterschool activities.
To preserve their right to privacy (UN
convention)
Disability Rights vs. Children’s rights
perspectives
How may the EP role facilitate a
better delivery of services?
Joining multi-agency teams for the
assessment and support of young
carers – e.g. Whole Family Pathway
Tailoring support within and beyond
school with reviews where necessary.
Implications for EP Role?
An area for further research and
investigation?
Support for schools to identify YCs?
Is there a ‘corporate parent’
responsibility?
EP – LAC vs. EP Young Carers
Implications for EP Role?
An area for Applied Psychology?
Can we support these young people to
meet all ECM outcomes?
Could we act as an advocate in school
difficulties?
Could we take part in awareness
raising?
Areas for further research
Hidden Role – is it concealed or
overlooked?
Fear – judgement, inappropriate
intervention.
Need for greater co-ordination of young
carers services.
What do ‘good’ services look like?
What can you do next?
Consider the implications of family member
illnesses on young people with whom you
have come into contact.
Visit any provision Young Carers in your local
area.
Ask schools whether there are any known
YCs.
Support schools to support YCs.
Familiarise yourself with national initiatives.
Summary
Summarise my research with young
carers
Discuss the implications of my research
to the profession of Educational
Psychology
What I would like you to consider in
your everyday role with the young
people that you work with.
Thank you
Please feel free to contact me with any
further questions
Contact details
[email protected]
References and links
Ofsted report (June 2009)
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/images/userfiles/file/Supportingyoung-carers.pdf
Carers at the heart of 21st-century families and communities:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Pu
blicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_085345
SCIE Guide 9: Implementing the Carers (Equal Opportunities)
Act 2004 (SCIE 2005)
http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide09/index.asp
The Children’s Society National Young Carers Initiative
www.youngcarer.com/showPage.php?file=index.htm
The Princess Royal Trust for Carers
www.youngcarers.net for list of local organisations.
Intervention with
Looked After Children
Vivian Hill & Morag Stuart
Rationale for our intervention
• To provide a proactive and preventative intervention to raise
educational attainments building on factors known to support
personal resilience through education.
• To develop a project to strategically support the Children’s
services / local authority / corporate parent in meeting the
‘Quality Protects’ education targets. Using a model that could
be adopted nationally from resources routinely available
within the education context and promoting a one sector
approach to corporate parenting.
• To explore and compare the impact of improved literacy and
maths skills on children’s self esteem, attention,
concentration, prosocial behaviour and perceptions of self
determination.
Running the Project
• Identifying the children and gaining
agreement for their participation;
• A time and a place that works for all;
• Assessing the children;
• Training the teachers;
• Monitoring and support;
Teacher training principles
Self esteem: developing successful learning and
responding positively to stress and challenges;
Multi-sensory teaching;
Structure and routine;
Cumulative learning;
Interactive lessons;
Consolidation and revision;
Building a positive and supportive relationship.
Literacy training
Theory
– Models of Reading and Spelling (word level)
– Literacy Difficulties
– A hierarchy of literacy skills
Teacher assessments
– Recognition of strengths and difficulties
– Assessment and observations
Practice
– Training in early phonological skills
– Later reading and spelling strategies
– Developing comprehension
Numeracy Training
Aims
– Confidence and independence
– Consolidation of existing knowledge
– Building on existing skills
– Develop mathematical language
Assessment
– Number sequencing
– Place value
– Addition and subtraction
– Multiplication and division
– Number facts
Psycho-social needs and resilience building
Loss and separation
Attachment theory as a basis for:
– Understanding the impact of traumatic life experiences on:
– Emotional and cognitive development
– Self esteem and locus of control
– Concentration, attention and motivation
Promoting Resilience
– The value of positive educational experiences
– Maintaining high expectations of learning within a supportive
relationship
– Nurturing confidence in the process of learning and providing
emotional support
Language Training
Initial assessment data identified concerns about the
development of expressive language.
Theoretical and practical issues - for teachers
– Vocabulary and concept development
– Sentence processing
– Extended thinking
Practical advice for carers and social workers
– Facilitating talk
– Techniques for listening
– Building on children’s ideas
Monitoring and support
Visits each half term
Recorded observations of teaching sessions
Support for
– Lesson planning
– Materials
– Behaviour management
– Practical Arrangements
Participants
25 children aged 5-11 years
All in foster care
Interventions given to 20 children split into two groups matched for:
– Age
– Gender
– Cognitive ability
– Language ability
– Attainments
Group 1: Literacy Intervention
Group 2: Numeracy intervention
Control Group: The remaining 5 children formed a control group and
were to have the most successful intervention at the end of the project
The Teachers
There were nineteen teachers
From the children’s own school
Often the child’s class teacher
Each teacher paid £1000 to:
Prepare, deliver and record 40 lessons
Each lesson lasts 50 minutes
2 lessons per week
Each child has access to 33 hours of additional support
Cognitive ability
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
70
80
90
100
110
cognitive ability
120
130
Receptive vocabulary at pre-test
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
cognitive ability
vocabulary
Improvement in vocabulary at post-test
104
102
100
T = 2.92
98
P = .009
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
pre-test
post-test
Vocabulary improvement by type of
intervention
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
t = 2.5
p <.04
t = 1.6
pretest
ns
posttest
literacy
numeracy
Attainments at pre-test
104
102
100
98
predicted
obtained
96
94
92
90
88
reading
spelling
number
Post-test improvement in attainments
104
102
100
98
t = 3.1
t = 3.5
t = 1.2
P = .006
P = .003
ns
pretest
posttest
96
94
92
90
88
reading
spelling
number
Attainment improvements by type of
intervention
50
40
reading pretest
reading posttest
spelling pretest
spelling posttest
number pretest
number posttest
30
20
10
0
literacy
numeracy
Self-esteem
Was measured using the SDQ (Goodman)
Whilst there were no significant changes across the
whole sample or across either intervention.
This may reflect the short duration of the project and
the extent of damaging pre and post care experiences.
There were, however, indications of changes in social
functioning, self confidence and locus of control.
Locus of Control
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
t = 3.1
t = 1.9,
t = 2.4
P = .007
P < .05
P = .04
One-tailed
pretest
posttest
whole
sample
literacy
numeracy
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Semi structured pre and post test interviews
Children’s Themes
• Degree of insight into learning process - Meta cognition
• Increasing self awareness
• Educational confidence and aspirations
Teacher’s themes
• Affective aspects of learning
• Social and emotional needs of CLA
• Affective stability supports learning
• Becoming a more reflective child
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Children’s Themes
Theme 1: Degree of insight into learning process
Subcategories:
• limited awareness of learning abilities,
“I am not sure if I’m Ok.. I think I’m crap” “I think I’m rubbish but
sometimes I do a bit alright and I don’t know why”
• focus on weaknesses and emerging disaffection,
“I’m bored because the lessons are rubbish and I’m crap” “I am not
a div I just don’t always bother” “Everything is a bit hard and that
makes it boring even trying to learn’ “I’m a rubbish learner..no
good”
• Awareness of strengths and awareness of how to learn,
‘when I really concentrate I can do it, I understand and get on with it”
“If I listen then I know what to do and then I get on fine” ‘learning
my tables means I can do more on my own”
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Children’s Themes
• Positive view of school
• “I love school it is my best thing..I want to come on my
birthday and Christmas day’ “ I have friends and the
teachers help me with my work”, “I like learning and
being in class” “I love being with my friends and my
sister is here too”
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Theme 2: Increasing self awareness
Subcategories:
Learning how to learn:” I set goals and I get more involved in learning
now” “Now I stay in class and it’s weird it makes more sense and I didn’t
get it before it was just all bits really” “I know how to learn better”
Behaviour: “When you saw me before I couldn’t think for one minute,I was
climbing up the walls like spider man’ I’m more calm like the other kids
now I not crazy like I was” “I was too sad…all that crap made me..forget
stuff that I knew”
Relationships: Mrs X gets me and she just knows what I can do and helps
me if I get stuck, she doesn’t get angry she just gets me going” “it’s cool
just me and Mrs X it is my best thing”
Enjoying support: “I can do more and I know I have changed, she even
helps me with my friends when I have a bad day” “I like having
someone to talk to’ “she makes me laugh and helps me keep calm”
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Children’s Themes
Theme 3: Educational Confidence and Aspirations
Subcategories:
Education leads to good life outcomes: “I want to go to university
and get a good job, nice house, cars and I want to travel the
world”
Plans for an Educational future: “I’m going to college to be a vet
or vet’s nurse”, “I want to be a lawyer so I need lots of exams so I
set goals for my SATs”
More balanced view of self as learner: “I can do stuff if I try but I
don’t always try that hard…I know that now” “I can do more than I
could before I know what to do now”
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Teacher’s themes
Theme I Affective aspects of Learning
Subcategories
Fear of failure: ‘Since the training I understand that her self esteem is too low to
take risks’, “He is able enough but can’t take it if he makes a mistake so he will
only do what he is sure of”
Instability and missed opportunities: “She has been at a different school every
year of her life”: “Never been anywhere long enough to get settled and get
support” “She is starting from a different place to her peers…she has missed so
much”
Non-compliance: ‘It is about control I can see that now so I respond differently”
“she doesn’t comply because she gets more attention that way..I need to rethink
that”
Distraction: “the hearing is next week and she is somewhere else..her thoughts
and emotions are all over the place” “He has so much going on…way more than
much older peers, things slip out when he is trying to work…his mind wanders”
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Teacher’s themes
Theme 2 Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning
Subcategories
Emotional Volatility impacts on friendships: ‘She is erratic and volatile
with her peers” ‘They find his changeability unsettling’
Lack of social confidence:’she is emotionally distant…doesn’t know how
to build friendships’,”he just doesn’t know how to sustain friendships’
Reduced opportunities for friendships:’She doesn’t see her friends out of
school due to CRB requirements” “He never goes to friends homes, he
wouldn’t be invited’
Impact of abuse: ‘All she ever heard from her family is how xxxx she is
and she believes it’ ‘her life experiences have reduced her access and
opportunities from day one…it is a lot to undo’
Emotional Preoccupation: ‘He internalises everything..he blames himself’
‘when things are going on at home his learning is in complete disarray’
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Theme 3 Affective stability supports learning
Subcategories
Positive experiences enhance motivation: ‘this intervention has got the ball
rolling, it provided a safe space and success”
Improved focus and concentration: “within two or three sessions I could see a
difference. He learned how to concentrate and be successful”
Happier children cope better: “he is more relaxed and laughing more, we even get
eye contact most days now’ ‘her grimace is long gone…she smiles more’
Training to understanding behaviour and build relationships: ‘the training made
me understand her behaviour and needs differently…I thought differently and
helped others to understand what was happening differently…it made us realise
exclusion was not an option’ ‘we all need to understand how the life experiences
of these children affect their learning and sense of self’ ‘every teacher working
with these children needs this type of training and opportunity to understand and
get to know the child…this has been my most rewarding teaching experience’
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Theme 3 Affective stability supports learning
Subcategories
Building relationships: “what has really impacted on her learning is
having that extra relationship, someone to support her and talk to her”
Advocacy in the school system:’when things were going wrong she
could come to me and I could calm her, I could explain to others. The
relationship prevented an exclusion several times over’
Safe learning environment: ‘somewhere safe to go over the gaps and
reinforce what is new’
Somewhere to manage distress: “the intervention has been an
emotional base for learning and a refuelling point when things have
been hard for her”
Reciprocal relationship: ‘It has been a privilege to work like this’,
This has been very rewarding personally I can’t believe where we have
got to..it is humbling’
Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis
Theme 4 Becoming a more reflective child - Subcategories
Time and space to manage emotional stress: I think he used the sessions to
get over things…it was a chance to sound out a trusted adult’
More stable relationships:’He has many fewer disputes’, ‘she often asked to
talk about what was going on in peer relationships and gain advice on how to
respond, she didn’t understand how to sustain relationships, she has more
stable friendships now.
Emotional regulation:’She has learned to manage her distress, she cries
much less because she is much stronger now’
Confidence: ‘much more likely to have a go now and contribute in class’ ;
Attitude to learning: ‘she is now in ‘can do’ mode and will try different
strategies to solve problems’
Aspirations for the child have changed: ‘she has blossomed, and isn’t
recognisable as the same child…she hadn’t been in a classroom for a year
and now she is talking about university’
‘I am hopeful for her future now’, “I think that he could go against the negative
statistics of children in care as long as he has people in his life to take his
academic and emotional needs on board’
Conclusions:
The general cognitive ability of the pupils covered the full ability
range, therefore there is no reason to expect that this sample of
looked after children will do less well in school than any other
group of children on the basis of ability.
The intervention succeeded in significantly reducing levels of
underachievement in reading spelling and number skills.
The children narrowed the gap between their attainments and that
of their peers. It provided a safe space to fill gaps in their
knowledge and a place to learn how to learn.
Even at the end of the intervention many of the children were still
significantly underachieving.
Conclusions
The content of the intervention probably had an effect on outcomes
because:
– Only the literacy group made significant improvements in
vocabulary
– Only the numeracy group made significant improvements in
number skills
This suggests that improvements were not just a consequence of the
extra adult attention that the children received.
We found no measurable improvement in self esteem, however the
children became significantly more internal in their locus of control.
This means that they felt more more able to accept responsibility for
themselves, their actions and behaviour. The qualitative data expands
on the psycho social and resilience gains;
Conclusions
Stability and resilience: There were no changes of school or carer for the
participants during the project apart from one planned adoption. There
were no exclusions.
The use of a school based teacher rather than supply or agency staff
promoted resilience by providing advocacy and support within the
school context- it also made for better links with the curriculum.
The project promotes positive multi-agency collaboration and a shared
vocabulary and understanding of the children’s needs.
The intervention did make a difference to attainments in key skills for
these highly vulnerable children
Conclusions
The importance of the relationship and a space to take emotional
concerns on a regular basis as well as a place to learn is of real
value;
This type of evidence based intervention needs to become
embedded as good practice within Children’s services- as
recommended by the White paper on Children in Care.
The importance of using the Children Looked After Education Team
as a longer term means of co-coordinating multi-agency
collaboration and providing proactive and preventative
interventions with children in care.
Cost effectiveness: Adopting a longer term view and spending
strategically. The project is proactive and preventative.
The Children’s views
“This has really helped me and I wish I could get
this help next year at secondary school….. If I had
had this help before I think I would be doing really
well now”
“I am lucky that people care about me and want to
help me…the people who paid for this, tell them
thank you….. could I have some more”
Three year follow up
Pupil’s report:
The value of the relationship with the teacher.
The value of the individual learning experience and
Meta Learning - learning how to learn
They told us the project made a big difference to their
education by helping them to learn new skills, to fill in
gaps in their knowledge, and in improving their confidence
so that they could try things they had feared.
The three year follow up discovered
that….
The children made better transitions to secondary school:
They had fewer and shorter exclusions, most had none.
Most have sustained their progress and their literacy
scores are closer to the average for their school than CLA
who have not received the intervention.
What the children have to say…
‘ I think I used to always talk with my friends until I had extra lessons.
They helped my concentrating and then I realised if I talk I can’t hear
and can’t learn so now I listen better and talk less…I didn’t know that
before...it’s crazy’
“I found them a bit more easy to concentrate, because it was just her
and me. If I drifted off she’d bring me back just by asking a question,
she never got cross’
‘It helped me do well with my tests (SATs). Work was a bit tricky
before and it helped me.”
What the children have to say…
“It had a lot of effect. It was good. I really
appreciated that because I wasn’t really learning
anything. That’s when she came and she helped me
and stuff”.
“She made learning fun. Before I couldn’t see the
point I just didn’t get it. That lady made a big
difference to me”.
What the children have to say…
“I look at it in a different way. I don’t find it as hard
as I used to. I find it, not exciting exactly but I’m not
so reluctant to - I used to do whatever it took to get
out of lessons for at least five minutes. After the
lessons I used to wander less. The teachers saw a
real change in me. They said there is a real change
in attitude she is not so reluctant to do her work”.
Final thoughts
Multi- level application of psychological knowledge and skills
across the child’s eco-system does make a difference not just
to the child but to the systems around them. The effect
ripples through school and corporate parent systems.
The EP is very well placed to develop, implement and
evaluate these types of interventions and is best placed to
help others understand the functioning of the looked after
child.
Models of PTSD and attachment are a powerful means of
helping other make sense of the children’s needs.
Training parents to support their
children‟s reading: an RCT
Kathy Sylva
Department of Education,
University of Oxford
Research questions
1.
2.
What are the effects of
HCA/SPOKES on children‟s
outcomes?
Can small scale RCTs go to scale?
The intervention: Supporting Parents on
Kids Education in Schools (SPOKES)

Combined programmes

Behaviour: „Incredible Years‟ parent training
programme (Webster-Stratton)

Literacy: SPOKES Home Literacy Programme
(Sylva, Crook & Price)
The behaviour programme:
Incredible Years (Webster-Stratton)




12-week cognitive-behavioural parent training
Aims to help parents form better relationships
with their children
Focused on play, praise, rewards and
problem-solving
DVD vignettes of parent-child interaction
stimulate discussion and role plays
The SPOKES Home Literacy Programme
(Sylva, Crook & Price, 2008)



10 week course designed to help parents
support the reading of 6-7 year olds at home
Trains parents in developing skills of active
problem-solving and phonics
Based on two well-established reading
programmes:
 Pause Prompt Praise (Glynn)
 Reading Recovery (Clay)
Pause Prompt Praise
Pause
Wait 5 seconds
“Read on”
“Read again”
Prompt
Give child a clue: “Look at the picture”, “What
you eat with your burger” [the word is „chip‟]
Specific phonics prompt
Praise
“Well done for working out the word”
Reading Recovery antecedents

A „whole-language‟ approach with reading
defined as a „problem-solving‟ activity


Meaning not derived from print alone, i.e., topdown as well as bottom-up
Children are taught to use a variety of
strategies

Since the 1990s these include analytic phonics,
e.g., „making and breaking words‟
Background to the SPOKES Home
Literacy Programme


Both PPP and RR emphasise the contribution of
decoding (bottom up) and meaning (top
down) for beginning readers
Both PPP and RR emphasise problem-solving
strategies
Structure of the SPOKES Home
Literacy Programme

Every session:

2 sessions:

4 sessions:




1
1
1
1
session:
session:
session:
session:
feedback, main topic/activity,
book reading, library
introducing children‟s literacy
and language development
supporting children‟s reading
through PPP (including
phonics prompts) combined
with „whole language‟
home visit (child & parent)
writing/spelling
consolidation
family literacy workshop
“Talking around the book”

Using a big book the group leader models how
to:
 Discuss the title of the book
 Look at the front cover
 Look at the pictures inside the book
 Identify characters and events by pictures
 Introduce new or difficult vocabulary
 Link book to readers‟ background knowledge
“Letter and sound role play”


Parents role play a parent and child reading
together
„Parent‟ uses letter/sound prompts, for
example:
 “What sound does it start with?”
 Break word into beginning and stem or
into syllables (e.g., car-pet)
 “Does it look like another word you
know?”
 “Try sounding it out…c – a – t”
The previous trial…



1997-2002
Institute of
Psychiatry and
University of Oxford
Aim: to improve
children‟s scores on
behaviour and
literacy outcomes
Sample and design
SCREENING
RANDOMIZATION
60 Intervention
112 High Risk
(and eligible)
936 5/6 yr olds
52 Comparison
- advice only
824 Low Risk/
ineligible/incomplete
SDQ
• Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQs) were completed on 919
children by teachers, representing 98.1% of children in their classes
• Parents of 684 children returned SDQs, a rate of 75%
• 394 were correctly filled in and usable
Summary of the SPOKES intervention
Term 1
Behavioural
programme
(12 weeks)


weekly parent
groups
use of video,
homework,
discussion
and role play
Term 2
Literacy
support
(10 weeks)



8 sessions
using video,
role play and
discussion
1 home visit
1 literacy
workshop for
whole family
Term 3
Top up of both
(6 weeks)
6 parent
groups
Regular supervision
ensured fidelity in
the delivery of the
programme
Outcome Measures

Family characteristics:



Children‟s behaviour:



Parental interview and questionnaire
Structured observation of the child at home (video)
Children‟s literacy:




Interview covering family structure and income,
housing type, ethnicity, and parental education
General Health Questionnaire (parental well-being)
Standardised literacy assessments (e.g., BAS)
Weekly reading logs completed by parents
Videos (pre & post) of parents reading at home with
their child
No significant differences between the intervention
and the control group at baseline assessment
Behavioural outcomes

Significant reduction in conduct problems (Parent Account of Child
Symptoms [PACS])
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Intervention
Control
Before
After
(50th = average for age; 90th = only 10% of children worse)

Significant reduction in oppositional defiant disorder and ADHD
symptoms
Reading outcome: single word reading
on BAS (raw scores)
---------Between Groups---------
Intervention
(N=58)
BAS raw
score
Controls
(N=44)
Pre score
Post score
6.55
(8.94)
24.62
(18.17)
7.36
(14.66)
19.14
(18.38)
Effect size
P
0.30
.05
Instruments: literacy assessments
Assessment
BAS Word Reading
Difference
p < .05
(effect size 0.3)
British Picture Vocabulary
Scale
ns
Concepts About Print
ns
Phonological Awareness
ns
Clay „Hearing and recording
sounds in words‟
p < .05
(post-test only)
The current trial:
Helping Children Achieve (HCA)

Aims of this trial:



To study the effects of the different components of the
intervention
To assess the social acceptability, reach, and costeffectiveness of the various treatment components
Sample:


Two local authorities chosen to reflect the economic
and social diversity of small and large urban areas
(inner London, West Country)
Poverty and low achievement in both authorities
Design of the HCA trial
SCREENING
RANDOMIZATION
Behaviour intervention
(N = 60)
5/6 yr olds
Screened on
parent &
teacher SDQ
High Risk
Low Risk
Literacy intervention
(N = 60)
Behaviour + Literacy
(N = 60)
Controls (signposting)
(N = 60)
Literacy measures in the HCA trial
(pre and post)






WIAT test of reading
comprehension
BAS single word
reading
BPVS
Clay „Hearing and
recording sounds in
words‟
PhAB non-word reading
Garfield test of reading
attitudes
The big question
If this intervention is rolled out on a
larger scale, would we see an effect
across communities of more children
achieving and less anti-social
behaviour?
Acknowledgements

The SPOKES Literacy Team:





Principal investigators:



Kathy Sylva
Jenny Price
Gulzar Kanji
Fiona Roberts
Stephen Scott (Institute of Psychiatry, University of London)
Kathy Sylva (Department of Education, University of Oxford)
Helping Children Achieve is funded by the DCSF
The original SPOKES trial



Sylva, K., et al. (2008). Training parents to
help their children read: a randomised control
trial. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 435-455.
Scott, S., et al. (2009, in press). Randomized
controlled trial of parent groups for child
antisocial behaviour targeting multiple risk
factors: the SPOKES project. Journal of child
psychology and psychiatry.
Funded by the Department of Health