Are we still ‘giving psychology away’ to promote inclusive education?
In this article Dr Penny Fogg reflects on Educational Psychology’s role in supporting all young people to secure an education which meets their needs and secures their rights. She describes this role in relation to the changing educational context in the UK and argues that Knowledge Exchange and collaborative research gives priority to stakeholder knowledge in a way which counters exclusionary pressures. Examples of recent research of this kind are presented.
In the 1990’s and early 2000’s educational psychology as a profession attempted to position itself more overtly within a collaborative and social-constructionist paradigm. Moving away from a focus upon identifying individual children’s deficits, the purpose of psychological assessment and intervention became oriented towards a child’s holistic experience with a view to understanding their needs ‘in context’ and how these needs might be met through some change in how they were cared for and educated.
Underpinning this aspiration was a belief that a mainstream school system could develop ‘capacity’ to include most children with special educational needs through regular training, alongside support and advice from specialist teachers and allied professionals. The expectation was, (and still is), that school systems learn to recognise, understand, and meet the needs of all children. Of course, the rationale for ‘giving psychology away’- as educational psychologists termed this approach- emerged in a particular social, political, and economic context, one in which school inclusion was increasingly valued: resources intended to support school inclusion became somewhat delineated, and an infrastructure of LA services came into being to support practice in schools and ensure some level of accountability in how guidance and legislation was enacted. In retrospect, as a practitioner of 20 plus years’ experience, I believe that I assumed, in the early 2000’s, that the social justice argument for inclusion was more or less settled, and that educational inclusion would progress, albeit slowly, against various forms of surmountable resistance. Educational Psychology, I imagined, would play its part in this progression through the development of a school pedagogy which attended to children’s voices, their experience, their rights and crucially, their personhood.
Twenty or so years on I believe it is possible to argue that knowledge and understanding of SEND, and the effect of adversity on children’s development, is now more present in schools. However, good SEND provision remains concerningly patchy and unreliable, both within schools, and between them. Indeed, the public conversation regarding disability, difference and neurodiversity we currently experience through mainstream and social media, may create a mis-leading impression, of a society less discriminatory than previously. Unfortunately, the public dialogue around SEND-disability, difference, and neurodiversity, does not reliably express itself in the structure and culture of the learning spaces children and young people inhabit.
If asked, why are many schools more exclusionary than 20 years ago, most SEND practitioners would refer to government policy, in particular provision affected by the government’s approach to economic management (austerity), school academization, real-term funding cuts, and a narrowed, prescribed curriculum, rigorously enforced by Ofsted and testing. There are clear markers of how these policies (pre and post Covid-19) have impacted children and young people’s well-being and mental health. Exclusion data can be mis-leading because there are hidden exclusions such as school transfer and internal exclusion, which are not officially recorded. However, government data indicates that suspensions and permanent exclusions have increased between 2021–2022, and emotion-based school avoidance has become more prevalent. There is a strong consensus amongst educators and child welfare practitioners that the intense regime of assessment has created an unhealthy obsession in schools with ‘scores’ and full attendance. This trajectory in policy and practice influences all children and young people’s experience of school, but the impact is most obvious where children’s right to education is most precarious- those with SEND, and children and young people who are vulnerable to school exclusion. These children often require the strong advocacy of parents as well as education practitioners (as allies) to achieve positive participation in education, to avoid the very significant risk of harm associated with long term exposure to exclusionary environments.
Local Authorities who have a statutory responsibility to provide a school place for all children have responded to these pressures by increasing the number of special school places available, perhaps understandably given they no longer manage most mainstream schools and have little influence over them. This move towards greater segregation is encouraged by the current government, and the many parents frustrated and exhausted by their engagement with the SEND systems.
Networks and collaboration- A two-way street
Within this changing landscape it is likely that Educational Psychology, as a profession might be expected to evolve and adjust.
An interesting counterpoint to an increasingly top-down target driven and market infused policy agenda in public services, has been the development of an approach to knowledge production and dissemination which is distinctly bottom-up. The construct of Knowledge Exchange foregrounds the establishment of networks which are inclusive of academics, practitioners, and service-users. These networks aim to generate research questions which are stakeholder driven, and therefore have the potential to produce knowledge which is transformational to the contexts in which they are located. Such research can challenge deeply rooted knowledge hierarchies, including assumptions about whose knowledge counts. In this way a commitment to research through Knowledge Exchange resonates strongly with the strong ethnographic leaning of educational psychology as a branch of applied psychology, as well as our commitment to ‘voice’, advocacy — and associated practice methods.
The practice life of an Educational Psychologist (EP) is intensely relational, and usually exists within a community network. Consequently, most EPs are comfortable with the idea that knowledge construction is a ‘two-way street’. Research can develop from reciprocal dialogue. Practice-based research and Knowledge Exchange may allow educational psychology to speak back to top-down market driven policy agendas, so as to provide an alternative account of ‘what works’ and what stakeholders and service-users want.
Perhaps the notion of ‘giving psychology away’ has always been a slightly misleading misnomer. It occurs to me that Knowledge Exchange borrows a particular kind of credibility from psychology practice, in particular the way theory is brought into dialogue with experience to formulate new understandings. After all, something is created in these everyday psychologically-minded interactions. Through practice-based research, and Knowledge Exchange, we more explicitly attend to and learn from this give and take, creating knowledge which can influence policy and practice, and build theory. ‘Giving Psychology away’ may no longer describe the way psychologists work with others in the educational context, or the way we apply psychology.
How does the idea of Knowledge Exchange influence our DEdCPsy practice-based research?
EPs in the UK are research trained and it is intended that their research brings value to the lives of children and young people. Every year the University of Sheffield DEdCPsy course supports regional services to present the research of practitioners. Our most recent event, July 2022, evidenced the situated and potentially transformative nature of such research, which is I believe captured by these Live Illustrations:
Our Trainee Educational Psychologists (TEPs) engage in research throughout their three year course. Their first piece of research is collaborative and stake-holder driven, introducing them to all the elements of practice-based research and Knowledge Exchange. Students bring a great deal of knowledge and skill to the course often acquired in previous community based, therapeutic or teaching roles. In this project these skills are integrated with the ethical and epistemological requirements of research.
This year our regional Educational Psychology Service partners brought five questions to us.
The Adult First Model: SENCo’s experience of participation.
One group supported an EP to understand the impact of a method of online consultation used to build psychologically informed teams around extremely vulnerable young people- The Adult First Model. This model uses a narrative method to re-story a young person’s experience, first of all with their parent-carer and then with practitioners invited to join the carefully facilitated dialogue. A clear finding of this research was that SENCo’s attending the meetings gained a greater empathy and understanding for the young people’s situation, and that clear actions emerged from this understanding. SENCo’s believed they were learning ‘language and concepts’ through their engagement with the consultation which they could share with colleagues. Through the collaborative research process the students recognised that the stories they heard about young peoples, and the practitioners experience were rooted in the wider story of the economic and social landscape in which they were situated. Their presentation reflects this, and can be accessed here:
https://eu-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/ccf591a7acdc44b7b7a8ed3d0836ba19
Understanding what stakeholders value about an Educational Psychology Service
An EP service asked us to support their efforts to understand how schools and support services experienced and valued their service. Previous research about EP role has found that stakeholders attributed greatest value to individual statutory assessments, and individual assessments more generally. This research found evidence that schools and services valued EP’s work at the systemic level. The EP service was seen as working through relationship, often using these relationships to support pressured systems to address the rights and needs of children and young people.
https://eu-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/f7beb8a937f54d3ea2b61a99b7117f2a
Evaluating the usefulness of a health needs sort activity in gaining the voice of pupils with a chronic condition who are currently attending a mainstream school.
Building on the work of a previous Sheffield DEdCPsy student a service asked us to evaluate a consultation tool developed to elicit and understand the needs of children with significant and long-term illness. Their aim is to understand how best to support educators to engage with this marginalized group, to elicit and amplify their voice. Through the research young people reported they were not often asked how their chronic illness impacted on their schooling, highlighting the importance of work in this area. The card facilitation was helpful in supporting useful conversation between adults and young people. The young people’s experience of the consultation tool will inform its development.
https://eu-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/a242503dc58a4ef59528b7966f1286d7
The experiences of parents and carers, accessing and using ‘Family Hubs’.
EP services are located in communities, and it is often important that they identify where in the community they can be most useful in supporting positive change. One of our partner services asked our students to support them to hear and understand parents’ views about support provided through a Family Hub- a resource intended to provide early intervention and support for SEND children and families. This research provided a nuanced understanding of how national policy can impact at the ‘micro’ level. The researchers found that ‘help and support’ secured through the ‘Family Hub’ was highly valued by parents and carers of children with special educational needs, reducing feelings of isolation and stress. However, the research also identified a complex spectrum of need perhaps requiring a flexible service response, with the need for long-term community-based support for some families. Evaluation at the micro-system provided a perspective often lost in large scale studies and this study demonstrated the value of small-scale practice-based research in determining on-going national policy development.
Experiences of Accessing and Using Family Hubs — Google Slides
An exploration of cultural-competency of the staff working in urban primary and secondary schools.
Designing practice-based research requires flexibility and resourcefulness. The goals of this research had to be re-defined as researchers engaged with the complex dynamics of the real-world setting. Responding to a services request to explore the cultural awareness and competency of staff in primary and secondary schools, it became clear that accessing this knowledge might require an approach which engaged the schools more directly in defining what cultural competency might mean in their setting. This first exploration was a vital part in developing a Knowledge Exchange network, creating the ground for further learning.
https://eu-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/1d4cbbff9ae4481bbf1e337ebb4ce8a6
Call out for new projects
In Autumn 2024 we hope to be engaged in more collaborative projects with our new Trainee Educational Psychology students. If you are reading this and have an idea for a project relating to your setting and your current practice, we would very much like to hear from you. Please contact p.fogg@sheffield.ac.uk
Penny Fogg is Deputy Programme Director of the DEdCPsy at The University of Sheffield.
