Given the wide variety of programmes and interventions that exist, it is clearly not possible to cover all of these here. Rather, the focus for this section will be in describing the current evidence available in relation to some of the programmes that are being used by schools in Northern Ireland.
These include: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS); Social and Emotional Aspects of learning (SEAL); Independent Counselling Service for Schools (ICSS): the Health Promoting Schools Initiative; and Mind Matters. Each of these, and the evidence of effectiveness associated with them, will be discussed in turn.
2.5.1 PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies)
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) is a whole-school emotional literacy programme for primary aged pupils (Merrell and Gueldner, 2010). It is currently being piloted and evaluated in a number of primary schools in the Lurgan/Brownlow area of Northern Ireland by Together 4 All.7 While this is a primary-school programme, it is perhaps the one school-based programme being currently delivered in the region with the strongest evidence-base (being listed as a Blueprints model Programme) and thus is worth describing here.
PATHS aims to develop children’s skills in five main areas: self-awareness, managing feelings, motivation, empathy and social skills. The PATHS curriculum is based upon a number of theoretical models with the main influence being the ABCD (affective, behavioural, cognitive, dynamic) model of development. This perceives a child’s behaviour and internal regulation to be a function of their emotional awareness and control, their cognitive abilities, and their social skills.
The PATHS curriculum adopts the following principles designed by Kusche & Greenberg (1994).
These include the following:
To effect significant changes in children’s social and emotional competence, it is necessary to focus on emotions, behaviour and cognitions;
Children’s ability to understand their own and others’ emotions is a central component of effective problem-solving and social interactions;
The school is a critical environment for the child and one that is capable of being a central locus for change;
6 See: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/
7 See http://www.together4all.org
Children’s ability to understand and discuss emotions is related to their ability to inhibit behaviour through verbal self-control (taken from Curtis and Norgate 2007: 34-35).
The PATHS programme consists of a manual and multiple lessons under three units (the Readiness and Self Control Unit; the Feelings and Relationship Unit; and the Problem solving Unit). Each unit contains aspects of five themes: self-control, emotional understanding, interpersonal problem-solving skills, positive self-esteem and improved peer communication/relationships. The generalisation of skills into daily life is supported through self and peer reinforcement and parental involvement.
While the PATHS programme has a robust evidence base in the Unites States (as indicated by its inclusion in the Blueprints list as a ‘model programme’) there appears to be scarce evidence of evaluations of PATHS in the United Kingdom. One study by Kelly et al. (2004), regarding the effectiveness of PATHS in a Scottish primary school, noted that children’s emotional understanding and problem solving were significantly better after experiencing PATHS. However the findings of this particular study are unreliable as it had no control group and was based on a small sample size.
Curtis and Norgate (2007) conducted a later study of the effectiveness of the PATHS by comparing outcomes for children in five intervention schools and three control schools in one area in the UK using a small quasi-experimental design (participants were not randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and semi-structured interviews were used to assess changes in the five social and emotional outcomes listed above. In relation to the findings Curtis and Norgate (2007: 42) note that:
The data gathered from the SDQ suggested that, compared to children within control schools, the children at PATHS schools showed significant improvements on all five behavioural and emotional constructs. This suggests that teachers perceived the introduction of the curriculum to have a positive impact on the children’s emotional and behavioural development. This was also supported by the interviews. Teachers perceived PATHS to have had a positive impact on the emotional vocabulary and understanding of the children. They also felt that the children were showing greater cooperation, empathy and self-control.
Alongside the pilot evaluation of PATHS in Northern Ireland mentioned earlier (Magee and Perkins, 2010), some further research regarding the PATHS programme is currently underway in Birmingham, England (Little and Hopkins, 2010).
2.5.2 SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning)
According to Humphrey et al. (2010: 5) SEAL is:
a comprehensive, whole-school approach to promoting the social and emotional skills that underpins effective learning, positive behaviour, regular attendance, staff effectiveness and the emotional health and wellbeing of all who learn and work in schools” (DCSF, 2007, p.4).
It is currently being implemented in around 90% of primary schools and 70% of secondary schools.
The SEAL programme is designed to help develop social and emotional skills that can be applied in daily life. The definition of emotional and social skills underpinning this programme is based on Goleman’s (1995) model of emotional intelligence namely: self-awareness; self-regulation (managing feelings); motivation; empathy; and social skills. The programme has several underpinning principles including: a focus on standards, behaviour and attendance; a climate conducive to the development of emotional and social skills with time, space, staff support and insight to practice these; a focus on staff wellbeing; a focus on parental engagement; availability of additional help for those who might need it. As opposed to a structured ‘step-by-step’ guide offering a particular model, Humphrey et al.
(2010: 7) describe SEAL as a ‘loose enabling framework for school improvement’.
While there have been several previous evaluations of SEAL, these have tended to either be pilot evaluations, focus on particular elements of the programme and/or focus on the primary version (Hallam et al., 2006; Humphrey et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2007; Downey and Williams, 2010). The main evidence to date of the effectiveness of SEAL relates to the recent national evaluation of the programme in post-primary schools (Humphrey et al., 2010). This evaluation focused on the effectiveness of SEAL against a range of outcomes and to consider how schools implemented SEAL particularly within the context of the whole-school approach.
The methodology consisted of quantitative component in which 26 SEAL schools and a matched group of 23 comparison schools were recruited from 25 Local Authorities in England to take part in a quasi-experimental study and where outcomes were collected on pupils’ social and emotional skills, mental health difficulties, pro-social behaviour and behaviour problems. With some drop out this number was reduced to 22 and 19 respectively.
Social and emotional skills were measured using the pupil self-report version of the Emotional Literacy Assessment Instrument (ELAI) (Southampton Psychology Service, 2003). General mental health difficulties and behavioural problems were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, Goodman 2007). The qualitative component consisted of longitudinal case studies of nine schools in which they were periodically visited and data collected following observations, interviews and classroom documentation.
In relation to the findings it was noted that there was significant variation regarding the implementation of SEAL with some schools engaging well and others operating a superficial tick box approach. It was suggested that the variation may have reflected the fact that schools had not had time for SEAL to become fully embedded and that there exist a number of other barriers to be overcome namely effective pre-planning, lack of implementation supports, a school environment not conducive or receptive to implementation and programme characteristics.
In terms of impact on pupil outcomes the findings were disappointing in that SEAL, as implemented in the schools in the study ‘failed to impact significantly upon pupils’ social and emotional skills, general mental health difficulties, pro-social behaviour or behaviour problems’ (Humphrey et al., 2010: 2). Furthermore ‘analysis of school climate scores indicated significant reductions in pupils’
trust and respect for teachers, liking for school, and feelings of classroom and school supportiveness during SEAL implementation. Additionally, qualitative data around perceptions of impact indicated a feeling that SEAL had not produced the expected changes across schools’ (Humphrey et al. 2010: 3).
As a result of these disappointing findings Humphrey et al. (2010: 3) make a series of recommendations as follows:
Future school-based social and emotional learning initiatives should more accurately reflect the research literature about ‘what works’ in this area – namely adherence to ‘SAFE’
(Sequenced, Active, Focused, Explicit) principles and careful monitoring of fidelity;
Resources and time should be made available to staff in schools that want to implement SEAL programmes to allow them to do this;
Greater engagement with parents/carers is required;
Initiatives like SEAL should be the subject of appropriate pilot trials before they are rolled out on a national level; and
Evidence-informed guidance to enable schools to make informed choices about the adoption of social and emotional learning programmes beyond SEAL.
2.5.3 Independent Counselling Services for Schools (ICSS)
Access to independent counselling is available to all young people in post-primary settings in Northern Ireland and Wales. In Northern Ireland the service has been available to all grant aided post-primary schools since September 2007 on the basis of a half day per week and is funded by the Department of Education. According to the most recent Handbook (Independent Counselling Services for Schools, 2009: 4) ‘some 220 schools make regular use of the service’. The counselling is provided by organizations that have tendered for the service and currently includes Family Works, Counselling4Youth and New Life Counselling.
In Northern Ireland a survey completed by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI, 2009) regarding the provision of independent counselling to post-primary schools by Contact Youth highlighted that the service was well valued and highly accessed. Concerns related to the small amount of hours allocated, that allocation per school did not reflect local need and that better relationships with health services were desired. The report concluded by stating that ‘the lessons to date indicate that counselling provision is a crucial intervention in the lives of some young people and should be developed as an important dimension of the pastoral programme in all schools’ (ETI, 2009: 11).
One study, using a quasi-experimental design, has evaluated the effectiveness of the NSPCC’s Independent Counselling Services for Schools (Adamson et al., 2006). This study analysed data collected in 2004 and 2005, on 512 children of whom 202 participated in part of the evaluation while the remainder did not. The findings revealed that:
children and young people approaching the service presented with significant difficulties (as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)); that they reported a significant improvement in emotional health and wellbeing (as measured by a decrease in SDQ scores) over the period of the independent schools counselling intervention; that Children and young people who do not have access to an independent schools counselling service reported a deterioration in emotional health and wellbeing (as measured by an increase in SDQ scores) over a comparable four-week period; and that key informants report
a significant improvement in children and young people’s emotional health and wellbeing (as measured by a decrease in SDQ scores) over the period of the independent schools counselling intervention.
(Adamson et al., 2006: 13)
In another related study by Fox and Butler (2009), as part of a wider evaluation of the work of the NSPCC Schools Counselling Project, 219 pupils aged 11-17 years completed the TEEN CORE questionnaire before and after receiving counselling. They found that the mean TEEN CORE score after counselling (n=104) was significantly lower compared to the mean score before counselling, indicating fewer problems/less distress. They reported that analysis of the data collected after three months (n=29) suggested that this treatment gain was maintained at follow-up. They argue that there is evidence to suggest that school counselling is effective and they recommend further research is needed to identify when and for whom it is most effective. However, these findings need to be treated with caution as no control group was used.
Cooper et al. (2009) have researched both the nature of the counselling services operating in post-primary schools and the associated outcomes. Using a systematic literature search the study located 30 audit and evaluation studies of counselling services in post-primary schools representing 10,830 students. Thirteen studies (43%) were from Scotland, six (20%) wholly or partly from Northern Ireland and the remainder from England (Copper et al., 2009: 9).
With regards to the analysis of these studies the findings showed that most of the counselling offered was person-centred. The average age of those attending was 13.9 years, with just over half being females and on average pupils attended for 6.4 sessions. Most attended due to family issues and more males attended to seek help with anger issues. Students were three times more likely to be referred to the service by a pastoral care teacher as opposed to other sources. For some of the studies pre counselling measures of mental wellbeing had been taken using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Cooper (2009: 15) noted that:
in terms of clinical categories (for which data was available from six studies), an average of 32.69% of clients came within the ‘abnormal’ range, with 26.39% coming within the borderline range. This compares with the 10% in a community sample that would normally score within the abnormal range, and the 10% that would normally score within the borderline range (Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire, 2009).
Cooper also noted that counselling was associated with large improvements in mental health (mean weighted effect size= 0.81), with around 50% of clinically distressed clients demonstrating clinical improvement. The greatest improvements were noted regarding emotional distress with small to moderate improvements regarding conduct disorder issues. Rates of participant satisfaction were high too. There were some indications (although not thoroughly tested) that involvement in counselling might have a positive impact on capacity to learn and study. One of the key messages to emerge in evaluations of Independent Counselling for Schools is the need for randomised controlled trials to properly test efficacy (Cooper, 2009; Cooper et al., 2010).
2.5.4 Health Promoting Schools Initiative
In Northern Ireland from 2002–2006, a pilot Health Promoting Schools Initiative was led by the Health Promotion Agency in association with a Regional Planning Group. Its aim was to test out an approach to plan for the development of healthy schools with 15% of schools across Northern Ireland. Within this framework a healthy school was seen to be one in which school staff, the community and other professionals work together in a planned and coordinated way to improve the health of all in the school community. Through action planning and self evaluation and reflection schools should aim to improve in relation to three elements of work: ethos and environment; quality of learning and teaching; quality of management. To guide and support schools in planning and self evaluation the Public Health Authority have developed a tool kit and made available as series of best practice case studies. A health promoting school is seen as one that:
actively promotes the self-esteem of all pupils;
recognises the importance of the social ethos of the school in supporting a positive learning and working environment in which healthy relationships and the emotional wellbeing of pupils and staff are strengthened;
uses every opportunity to improve the physical environment of the school;
develops home/school/community links and shared activities;
encourages pupils to develop responsible attitudes towards health and the appropriate skills to maintain it;
extends understanding beyond the curriculum to include other influences on pupils’ health
(Health Promotion Agency Northern Ireland, 2002: 7) An independent process evaluation of the pilot of the Healthy Schools Initiative in Northern Ireland by Thompson et al. (2005) found that the programme and emerging toolkit were significantly valued by schools and it was perceived that it impacted beneficially on pupils’ health awareness, attitudes and behaviours. However, it was noted that there was a lack of robust outcome measurements in the programme. The evaluation’s key findings relevant to emotion and wellbeing included:
The importance of a whole-school approach that involved all stakeholders; coherent theoretical foundations promoting congruence across the whole-school culture;
The need for a team of dedicated regional coordinators to: foster an initiative; promote staff and organizational development and support for schools; build links between schools;
support blended learning approaches; to assist in whole-school audit; and disseminate good practice between schools; and
The importance of on going evaluation and whole-school audit that involved all stakeholders; the need to gather robust data on attitudinal, behavioural, emotional, social and educational outcomes; the need to complement existing school self-evaluation processes and pupils’ emotional health and wellbeing related processes and curriculum.
To date, there are no published impact evaluations of the Health Promoting Schools initiative that make use of a pre-test/post-test, controlled group design.
2.5.5 Mind Matters
Mind Matters is a whole-school mental health programme that aims to encourage pupils to deal with the challenges life offers by advocating particular health-sustaining protective (or resilience) measures. The model involves: helping pupils develop more effective communication and problem-solving abilities; supporting their help-seeking behaviour; and promoting their identification with the school. The programme therefore aims to promote mental health though the school environment and, as such involves undertaking audits, planning and implementation of mental health promotion structures, policies and activities (Broomhill et al., 2004).
The audit focuses on the three spheres of practice that interact to create a health promoting school, those being: curriculum, teaching and learning; school organization, ethos and environment; and partnerships and services (Wyn et al., 2000). The audit forms the basis to planning for a school-based strategy aiming to promote mental wellbeing. Mind Matters provides resources to help in the auditing process and also provides resources to teaching staff in the form of five modules for the curriculum. These include: enhancing resilience (part one and two); a whole-school approach to dealing with bullying and harassment; understanding mental illnesses; and loss and grief (Evans et al., 2005: 52).
Findings of an evaluation of the programme using a quasi-experimental design have shown that students participating in the Mind Matters programme are more willing to seek help for mental health problems compared to students not participating (Mind Matters Evaluation Consortium, 2000) and that there is improvement in student academic performance, attitudes of staff, and knowledge of school policies for those participating in Mind Matters (Hazell et al., 2002; Wyn et al., 2000; Rowling and Mason, 2005; Anderson and Doyle, 2005). There are no known full experimental studies in support of this programme.