include Case studies > Supporting young people and their
families through education
T had been referred to Include in Year
2 as there were concerns about lack of attention, concentration and
an apparent disregard for his safety and that of others. Although
not physically aggressive, he was often in trouble with school
staff because of a perceived poor attitude towards authority. He
liked to do things his way, and thought nothing of questioning
adults if he did not understand the reason why he was being asked
to carry out a task or to comply with instructions. He was involved
in ‘low-level’ disturbances in the classroom and, more
particularly, on the playground. Lunch time supervisors often
complained that he was ‘rude’ and ‘cheeky’. T spent most of his
playtimes either standing with a teacher or supervisor, standing
against the wall or inside the school building, as he was often not
allowed out on to the yard.
T was considered to be an able, if not
above average, student, but teachers felt that he needed to apply
himself more to achieve anything like his true potential. He showed
a particular aptitude for science, art and any activity where he
could be creative. He loved drama but had little opportunity to
take part in school plays and productions. Staff felt that his
behaviour was too changeable to be able to trust him to perform in
front of an audience, and told him this. T was also excellent at
sport, but found playing as a team member very difficult. He was
better suited to track events where his highly competitive nature
earned him recognition. School also reported that, when tackled
about his behaviour, T was never able to accept responsibility. He
never completed any homework and was often unable to complete work
in class
At home, T showed the same poor
attitude towards authority as in school, particularly towards his
mother. His father was a stay-at- home dad while mum worked long
shifts. This was a purely financial decision as mum’s earning
potential was greater than dad’s. However, by mum’s own admission,
she felt guilty about being out at work so tended to give in to T’s
demanding behaviour (which often escalated from tantrums into
breath-holding episodes, where mum feared he would pass out.)
T enjoyed time with his father, going
fishing, helping with gardening, which he showed a real flair for,
and reading science books or watching the Discovery Channel. He
often amazed his parents with his depth of knowledge. He constantly
asked questions about a wide range of subjects, showing a maturity
beyond his years, which was in stark contrast to his
attention-seeking behaviours.
Mum and dad stated that they were at
breaking point because they felt that they could not effectively
parent their own child. Mum also disagreed very strongly with the
attitude that she perceived school had about her child, although
dad tended to see the head’s point of view. As mum was very much
the driving force in this family, she was the one who had
communicated with school about T’s behaviour. The communication had
all but broken down by the time T was referred to Include by the
educational psychologist.
Targets set in the referral were:
School-based:
- To help improve communications
between home and school
- To establish a baseline of T’s
behaviour
- To work with the school in setting
appropriate targets for T
- To support the setting up of
appropriate rewards/sanctions.
- To monitor the effective use of
rewards/sanctions
- To support T in taking responsibility
for his behaviour
- To work with lunchtime supervisors in
managing T’s behaviour more effectively
Home based
- To support effective communication with school
- To support parents to manage T’s
behaviour more appropriately and consistently
- To encourage use of appropriate
targets, rewards and sanctions
- To monitor the effective use of
behaviour management strategies and rewards/sanctions
The targets were discussed with
parents and teaching staff. During home visits I worked with mum
and dad on tackling T’s undesirable behaviour in a structured,
consistent way. I also emphasised the importance of both parents
adopting a united, consistent approach. We discussed behaviour
management strategies that they had found had worked with T in the
past, and looked at ways of increasing the use of these strategies.
I advised on other strategies to address specific issues.
T often refused to dress himself or to
eat breakfast. This led to his mother dressing him in the mornings
and spoon –feeding him. This behaviour was not healthy and I
discussed Mum’s needs with her. Mum could see that her
over-parenting was having a detrimental effect on all the family.
Once she made the decision to address this issue, I was able to
support her in moving forward.
Rewards were tailored to suit T’s
interests and the family’s needs. It was important that both
parents felt able to sanction T, where necessary, and that they did
not continue with the disjointed approach that was in place when
the intervention started. T was part of the discussions and was
clear about what behaviour was expected of him, what would happen
if he met the expectations and what would happen if he did not.
I made weekly visits to the family
home and to school.
In school, I asked the class teacher
to record T’s behaviour for a week. I spoke to lunchtime
supervisors and helped them to set up a more pro-active approach to
T’s behaviour. He was given a fresh start at every break time, with
any transgressions dealt with immediately. This helped him to feel
that he could be trusted out on the yard. He could earn extra
playtime as a reward if he had lost some as a sanction. T felt that
this was fair and responded favourably to this new-found trust in
him.
Baseline assessment showed a pattern
to T’s more disruptive behaviour. This usually occurred during
literacy sessions. T was also recorded as being frequently off task
during lessons where he had to write or take any sort of test,
other than verbal. I reported back to the referring educational
psychologist, giving her the results of the assessment and also of
my observations of T’s behaviour. The Educational Psychologist
(EP) spoke to school staff and T’s parents before making a
referral to Community Paediatrics. This referral led to an eventual
diagnosis of ADHD. T was also assessed and found to have Specific
Learning Difficulties. By the time I worked with T in Year 6 he had
been allocated learning support for 50% of the school day since
Year 3. This had made a huge difference to his academic
achievements and to his self-esteem. T was also prescribed Ritalin
by this stage.
Through discussion at home and in
school, I was able to help mum to understand more clearly why
teaching staff had been complaining about T’s poor behaviour. I
asked both parties to trial using a home/school book, to record
desirable behaviour as well as that which was not so good. This
helped to reinstate the communication process. After a few weeks,
mum felt that she could talk to the teaching staff once again, but
the book remained in use. This was useful for T to see that his
parents and school were talking. School reported that T was better
behaved, and was as pleased to see good comments in the book as his
parents were to read them. Mum was also encouraged to send good
news into school about T. As a result of this interaction, T could
no longer depend on his mum ‘backing up’ his behaviour without
question. During my sessions with him, he increasingly showed
awareness of the need to take responsibility for managing his own
behaviour. This was still quite difficult for him to achieve, but
once he had classroom support, he responded well to encouragement,
modelling of expected behaviour, and immediate
rewards/sanctions.
At the close of the intervention, T
had not yet been diagnosed as ADHD, so did not have the classroom
support. However, relationships between home and school had
improved, targets and expectations were clear, appropriate
strategies were in place, a more consistent approach to managing
T’s behaviour was being used and it appeared that T was making good
progress.
Subsequent follow-up visits after the
close of intervention revealed that T had gone from strength to
strength both at home and in school and, while ‘no angel’ in his
mum’s words, was now more settled and beginning to achieve some of
his academic and social potential.
A closing summary containing an
overview of the intervention was completed within two weeks of the
intervention closing and sent to the referrer.
2) Transition Intervention, Yr
6/7
T was referred back to Include in Year 6 as his head teacher and
his parents had expressed concerns that they felt that, while he
was usually quite manageable in a small school setting in primary,
he would probably not successfully manage the transition to the
much larger comprehensive setting. His mum was particularly
concerned that his lack of concentration (which was still very
evident, despite medication) and his lack of concern for his own
safety would lead to huge problems. School discussed the situation
with the EP. The matter was then discussed with mum and T. The EP
felt that mum’s fears, while understandable to a degree, were out
of proportion to the actual problem. She also felt that mum was
transmitting her fears to T, who did not seem unduly concerned at
that time. As include had worked with the family
before, it was felt that the extra support from someone that the
family knew, might make a difference to the ease and effectiveness
of the transition.
T’s behaviour had improved from the
level shown in Year 2. However there were still concerns about
levels of behaviour that teaching staff saw as destructive, but his
parents regarded as a case of ‘boys will be boys’. As reported in
the previous intervention, T was still not completing homework. His
mother refused to make him do it, as she said it was causing him
undue distress. Due to the nature of T’s ADHD and specific learning
difficulties, he had issues with forgetfulness, inability to tell
or judge time, poor sense of direction and academic issues such as
writing and spelling. While these difficulties were being managed,
with the aid of additional support, both school and mum felt that
in a comprehensive setting, there was the potential for T to be in
quite serious trouble within a short time of moving up. His mother
was so worried that she had become physically ill.
School targets were:
- To support the transition process
from KS2 to KS3
- To enable T to develop strategies to
cope with his new situation
- To support the new school in putting
appropriate measures and strategies in place to support T during
transition and beyond
Home targets were
- To support mum in preparing herself
and T for the transition
- To support T in identifying support
in his new school
- To liaise between home and both
schools to ensure flow of relevant information
I began the intervention in the final
weeks of T’s time in primary setting. Most of the work done was
liaising between home and schools, making sure that that the
comprehensive Head of Year 7 had a full picture of T’s needs and
his mother’s concerns. The HOY arranged a meeting at the
comprehensive where T’s parents could take the time to fully
express all their concerns. The HOY was able to address each point
raised individually and outline the school’s approaches to the
problems raised. It was useful for T’s parents to know that, where
he had been one of only a handful in the primary school with ADHD,
he was one of more than twenty in the comprehensive. The HOY
outlined specific plans for supporting T, who he should go to if he
had a problem, who would be looking out for him, that he would be
assigned a buddy etc. Both T’s mum and dad were visibly relieved
after the meeting.
Another meeting was set up for T and
his mum so that they could go around the school. T was given a map
of the buildings so that he could familiarise himself with the
layout in the summer break. T was encouraged to discuss his worries
(which were mainly about where he had to go for dinner!).
Throughout the summer break I made
visits and kept in contact with T and his family. During visits we
looked at ways in which T could organise himself and do his
homework, with a reward in place for each completed piece of work.
T had already been told that some of his work could be completed on
his laptop, bought for this purpose, and that there were several
methods of recording work, other than writing, that the school
used.
At the start of the new school term I
had arranged with T that I would see him in school on the first
day. He settled in well and asked me to visit him at home. His
parents and the HOY reported few problems at first. After a couple
of weeks, T was persuaded by older boys to leave the premises
during lunch break, for which he received detention. This was
difficult, as his mother did not agree that T was to blame. It
seemed for a while that she was excusing his behaviour yet again.
Given that this appeared to be the root of the problem previously,
I had to discuss this with her immediately. She maintained that the
school staff were at fault because they had not kept him under
supervision. Another series of meetings were held, with mum again
becoming unwilling to talk directly to school staff, feeling that
her worst nightmares were being realised. However, the swift action
taken by the school seemed to have an effect upon T. We discussed
strategies he could use in the future to avoid a repetition and
also some strategies that he devised himself for coping with the
unfamiliar territory he was in.
After autumn half-term the HOY
reported that any behaviour problems that arose were being
effectively dealt with in school. His parents were happier as the
scenario that they had imagined did not occur. The intervention was
closed.
A closing summary, outlining the
targets, approaches and outcomes, was sent to the referrer within
two weeks of closing.