A focus on practice

Three of the included studies explored the views and experiences of educators in relation to the different forms of practice in APs (Malcolm, 2018b; Meo & Parker, 2004; Putwain, Nicolson & Edwards, 2015). These papers described both similarities and divergences in approach, noting the way in which school staff manage and adapt their pedagogical practice to facilitate re-engagement of their students.

Employing a sociological enquiry method utilising observations, semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis, Meo and Parker (2004) explored pedagogical practice and the experience of teachers in one PRU setting. Educators considered the National Curriculum and raising standards as a low priority, highlighting the importance of developing the social and personal skills of the students (e.g. self-esteem, engagement,

1 _{Social Graces or Social GGRRAAACCEEESSS, representing an acronym for: ‘Gender,} Geography, Race, Religion, Age, Ability, Appearance, Class, Culture, Ethnicity, Education, Employment, Sexuality, Sexual orientation, Spirituality’ (Burnham, 2012)

trusting relationships, social skills). Due to the temporary and transient nature of the student cohort, teachers experienced an additional time pressure to educate the CYP, in addition to finding methods to modify lesson content to minimise disengagement and challenging behaviours. Teachers were also preoccupied by issues of authority, classroom management and control, with the implementation of systems of punishment and rewards. Finding ways to manage, the paper highlighted a battle between curriculum obligations and institutional survival, in which participants frequently adjusted and redefined difficult situations through the adaptation of their pedagogical practice. While offering a rich, narrative account of ‘life’ (p.106) within one PRU, it is arguable that the findings of this study may be outdated, situated in a different socio-political context with less applicability to the current environment of systemic pressure and rising academic standards. Noting that teachers were provided with a ‘lack of institutional opportunities to reflect collectively on the difficulties and dilemmas within teaching and learning practices’ (p.117), it was difficult to differentiate the experiences of staff within this paper, with their views amalgamated with the perspectives of the researcher. Further criticism ensued as a result of limited information about methodological decisions (e.g. number of participants), data analysis and researcher reflexivity, further impacting on the transparency of the paper.

Further exploring practice that enabled re-engagement with disconnected students, Putwain and colleagues (2015) conducted a month-long fieldwork project, comprising of semi- structured classroom observations and interviews with CYP and members of staff (teachers, higher management, behaviour and welfare officers and therapeutic workers) in one AP. Drawing parallels with Meo and Parker (2004), the findings highlighted the adaptation of pedagogical practices for students, including the need for a high degree of individualised learning, instruction and support, mediating for a lack of confidence, self-worth and belief.

Staff understood educational histories, student needs and capabilities, in addition to the importance of adapting their approach away from the replication of ‘old-fashioned’ (p.8) methods utilised in mainstream education. A high ratio of teachers to students was seen as necessary to manage needs, although the multifaceted roles of staff created tension due to competing responsibilities. The researchers also highlighted how many of the participants described these practices as absent from mainstream schools, fitting with previous research accentuating the comparisons drawn with outside settings by this group of school staff (Broomhead, 2013a; Farouk 2014; Hart, 2013; Malcolm, 2018b; Levinson & Thompson, 2016). Shedding light on the instructional environment that offered support to excluded CYP, little information was given about the other elements of the setting that aided re- engagement (e.g. the approach to behaviour management or the relationships built). Whilst a thorough methodological approach and data analysis was conducted, questions were raised as to the potential influence of the researcher’s extended presence within the setting and the impact of this on the findings.

In addition to emphasising the motivation felt by headteachers within APs, Malcolm’s (2018b) study also focused on the provision available for excluded CYP, exploring the characteristics of their practice and areas of divergence. Contrasting with findings from Meo & Parker (2004), it was evident that whilst APs differed in focus, their approach had become increasingly academic (through the offer of qualifications), a likely response to increasing government pressures to improve. Settings showed deviation in their organisational culture and method to managing challenging behaviour, with the implementation of exclusionary practices and restraint. Headteachers demonstrated a consensus concerning the use of relational practice within their APs, although responded differently in their approach to managing student-staff conflict (e.g. using restorative

practice, finding ways to disengage and diffuse situations). As described within this paper, the experiences and views of staff allowed an exploration of the different forms and structure that exist amongst APs, highlighting areas in which intervention may be necessary. Whilst the voice of educators within these provisions was viewed as ‘a priority’ (p.3), it is arguable that the use of surveys as a methodological approach prevented any true in-depth exploration of experience.

2.4 Chapter summary

The purpose of this chapter was to explore what is known about the views and experiences of school staff supporting excluded CYP within APs. In a thematic format, it answers the review question, whilst critically analysing included papers and demonstrating gaps within the literature base. Through this review, it is evident that a dearth of literature exists within the UK that explores the experiences of school staff supporting CYP within APs. Whilst papers investigating these settings exist, the majority focus on the experiences of CYP, a result of recommendations that research should centralise their voice. Literature within this area holds a predominant focus on staff’s function in relation to the CYP’s progress or future, with a limited number of papers directly exploring their experiences as individuals. The views of AP staff are frequently included with the perspectives of CYP or their mainstream counterparts, with a paucity of research focusing solely on this group. Though TAs are included within participant samples, their views are frequently sought in conjunction with other educational professionals meaning their voice as a group remains amalgamated with the perspectives of others. Whilst multiple papers highlight the importance of educational staff and the need to gain their views, this review shows a gap in the literature in regard to TAs, with no papers focusing solely on their experience.

3. Methodology