Findings and Principles Consistent with Systemic Theory and Practice Principles consistent with systemic practice in schools were identified in Chapter

One, page twenty-two as:

- collaboration between parent, pupil, school and family

- how families perceive the welcome and acceptance they receive from school staff

- not seeing the young person in isolation but in the context of the school ad family system.

The findings of this study substantiate the principles consistent with systemic

practice and are useful to the practitioner working to promote school engagement in the following ways:

a) The ‘Our Future’ Project was by its nature designed to promote collaboration. How the families in this study perceived welcome and acceptance from the school staff was expressed in the superordinate theme ‘Appreciation of Effort’, the subordinate themes of ‘Participation and Contribution’, ‘Communication and Relationship’. How the parents and pupils describe their perception of participation and contribution reflects how individual this can be to each family. This is useful to the practitioner as it calls to mind the bespoke nature of promoting engagement with families as substantiated in the literature (Day, 2013).

b) The reduction of the isolationist and ‘within-child’ model is illustrated through the research as it embodies the principle of the importance of experiencing a sense of belonging. The pupils increased sense of belonging substantiates a principle of systemic practice that although an individual is part of a system they need also to have a reality that they belong to that system. The participants in the study began to experience change as they gained in confidence and motivation. They were then inclined to participate and contribute. The pupils experienced the circularity referred to by Cecchin (1987) that when change was created that enabled them to participate and contribute they did so, this then increased their sense of belonging. The practitioner can reflect on how they can work to increase with pupils that

sense of belonging and community. Tools such as the ‘sense of Belonging Scale (Frederickson and Cline, 2005) could be helpful to promote reflective discussion, to identify how support can be increased and if necessary to evaluate progress. The implications of a superordinate theme such as ‘Legacy of Enjoyment’ relates also to the sense of belonging, experiencing an event that created lasting positive memories. This was reflected not only in the pupil accounts but in the staff response.

c) Part way through my evaluation of the ‘Our Future Intervention’ study I provided the school with a headline document (Appendix Seven). In sharing the headlines that reflected the outcomes for students and parents as part of the ‘Our Future' Project, the school staff were encouraged and surprised. The school staff were encouraged, because all the effort of the intervention had suggested that it had been worthwhile. They were surprised, because they did not realise the impact that working with the pupils and their families would have. To elicit change was the intent and purpose of delivering the intervention. Nevertheless, to realise the extent to which this had been effective as shown in the three families interviewed, was a revelation to them. The sharing of ‘soundbites’ (in confidence to the participant) from the parent and pupil voices to supplement the headline findings had the most effective impact. Hearing directly from the voices of pupils is well documented as proving beneficial to promote positive outcomes for children and young people (Lyle, Hendley and Newcomb, (2010). Therefore, this study supports the view that practitioners should be mindful of the ways in which they listen to the voices of pupils and parents and how in their power collaboration can be promoted.

d) It would suggest for school staff how, being part of the system, feedback is important to them too, not just for the future development of their practice but also for their motivation and confidence. With the consequence of reflecting on their own sense of belonging in the school community.

e) The perception experienced by the participants in the ‘Our Future’ Project was that the school staff were more interested in them. This continued beyond the

project in the experience of pupils in the class room by teachers. For practitioners to ensure that pupils and parents feel valued is an ongoing challenge.

f) At its most simplistic systemic communication the effectiveness of a measure of how much a school cares being described by P3 as the way phone calls are handled. Such an observation may provide a basic but useful insight to the practitioner concerned with developing engagement between schools and families.

g) As an Educational Psychologist Practitioner working with a school to promote engagement with families the research informs ways in which systemic principles can be promoted. The practitioner would reflect on how collaborative, for example, the process of consultation is.

h) The practitioner can explore with school staff the ways in which they consider they are perceived by parents and pupils, is there true collaboration or is an agenda of power prevalent? This can be explored through formal supervision of school staff.

i) Systemic practice can offer a way of conceptualising the behaviour of individuals in a social system. The interconnectedness between the school and family can be explored and sense made of the complexities between the two. How the EP in their role can develop this way of working was seen by the support given by the EP throughout the ‘Our Future’ Project intervention. The ongoing reflective conversations with a key staff member and input through the collaborative process using the Burnham Quadrant to facilitate staff towards the focus of the ‘Conference’ days.

j) The revelation about the power of the voice of the child provided positive messages for school staff. The research process caused staff to pause and consider the effectiveness of their contribution to the project. As the EP, to consider how pupil / parent voice can be encouraged and staff feedback provided in the future in other settings.

In discovering ‘what next’ with the staff group following an intervention as ambitious as the ‘Our Future’ Project models such as solution circles and reflective methods would be practical tools. How the ‘Our Future' Project as a model might evolve, would be dependent upon resources not only in terms of finance but in the resilience of staff to continue to engage with the model. Other factors would be those posed by the environmental aspects of school organisation. Factors would include the demands of time and the constraints of the curriculum, the meeting of targets and by examination schedules at Key Stage 4.

Reflection

I thought that two areas in particular make a valuable contribution to the way in which the role of the educational psychologist can be understood in their support of school intervention. The first is the way in which skills can be applied when working with schools, young people and families. Secondly, outcomes such as facilitating how narratives can be changed from ‘hard to reach’ to ‘how to reach’. This excites me because, as Hanko suggests, it opens up new possibilities. New possibilities make new meanings, and this means that outcomes can be changed and improved.

Chapter Seven

Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations 7.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to draw together the main findings and observations of this study. The limitations of the research are discussed. Recommendations for the practice of Educational Psychology and for further research in the field are made. Concluding remarks and reflections complete the chapter.