RQ1: What are the outcomes of a shared placement?

The pupils spoke about two outcomes to their shared placements, both of which reflect outcomes from Phase 1. These can be seen in Figure 2 with illustrative data.

Figure 2: Pupil outcome themes with illustrative data

Outcome Illustrative Data

Positive Engagement in both settings

‘[The AP] made me try harder at school. Behaviour improved. Small classes were good and focused more on education.’ (P3,Y9)

‘[without the AP] I definitely would have been expelled. Would have fallen further behind… My behaviour was much better after starting here… I didn’t fight at all when I went back… I had a focus

and could see a career. Messing around didn’t seem important anymore.’ (P8,Y11)

‘Without [the AP] I wouldn’t be on track to get any GCSEs… it has saved me really. I’ve had no issues with behaviour since I had a

focus for my life… something to work towards.’ (P6,Y11)

Engagement with the AP but further disengagement from

school

‘It was great at the centre. Not here though.’(P1,Y5) ‘It makes me a little bit bad when I come back to school… I have been refusing to do my work and be worse than normal.’(P2,Y6) ‘I'm more angry here because I wanted to stay at the centre.

Behaviour was worse because I had to leave.’(P10,Y6) ‘Coming here made it harder to come back to school. Because of

how it is here, I didn’t want to go to school anymore. Behaviour got worse at school.’(P7,Y10)

85 After discussing the pupils’ experiences, all of the pupils agreed that their outcome could be accurately described by one of the two groups. None of the pupils fell into the outcome of behaviour deterioration in both settings. As described above, a discussion was had with a relevant member of staff following interview to ascertain that the outcome description was accurate. In all cases, the members of staff agreed that this was a fair description of the outcome.

Key findings

a) The pupils’ perspective on the outcomes of their shared placement was in line with the responses from staff in Phase 1.

b) Only two outcome patterns emerged, as all the pupils thought that their behaviour and engagement at the AP was positive.

3.5.2 RQ2: What are the mechanisms that operate in a shared placement to bring about outcomes?

As described above, visual aids were used to support the interview process and ascertain details about the pupils’ views. The discussions regarding mechanisms revealed a range of responses that built on the results of the first phase. On many of the mechanisms, the pupil perspective was in line with Phase 1 results and this provides further support for the theoretical model developed in the previous study. However, there are a number of instances where the pupil perspective has offered richer and more detailed information on the mechanisms. It is these mechanisms that are important in refining the original theory and these are displayed in Figure 3.

86 Figure 3: New and Refined Mechanism Themes

New or refined mechanisms:

 Confidence and self-efficacy  Aspirations for the future  Pupil Confusion

 Pupil feel valued, accepted and that they belong at the school

 Pupil feels rejected

Confidence and Self-Efficacy

The evidence suggests that when outcomes were positive, increased confidence was a key mechanism for the pupils. For these pupils, there was usually an increased confidence in relation to their ability to engage with learning and a school curriculum. For others, the shared placement had allowed the pupils to build confidence in relation to practical skills. This emerged in analysis as a mechanism better described as self-efficacy than a general confidence.

For the majority of pupils whose engagement had deteriorated at school, the AP had provided little opportunity for development of skills and therefore self-efficacy. Pupils enjoyed the activities and the break from the school environment, and some reported increased confidence from this. However, this did not seem to lead to any further engagement or confidence within the school environment.

‘At school, you don't do the fun stuff... It’s the activities, get to do loads more stuff [at AP] so prefer it. Choosing time and baking is the best.’ (P10, Y6)

Aspirations

Although increased self-efficacy was a clear mechanism for the pupils, there was also a new and related theme of aspirations for the future. This was a strong theme from the pupils where school engagement had been positive. Many pupils in this group spoke about their

87 aspirations for the future, their career and many reported that this hope and focus was the main reason for their engagement. For example,

‘Without [the AP] I wouldn’t be on track to get any GCSEs… it has saved me really. I’ve had no issues with behaviour since I had a focus for my life… something to work towards’. (P6,

Y11)

Similarly, a different pupil reported:

‘I want to be going into school... because it’s the best education and that’s important’. (P3, Y9)

Pupil Confusion

The pupils’ response to the mechanism of confusion was very interesting as the majority of the pupils reported that confusion was not a problem. Although acknowledging and being very aware that their behaviours between settings were very different, only one pupil indicated that they felt confused by the different rules. He reported that:

‘I’m always in the kitchen at [the AP]. Here I’m not allowed in the kitchen…does my head in’. (P2, Y6)

Whether this pupil was genuinely confused by this rule is harder to tell. It may reflect that he is unhappy with the school rule that he cannot go into the kitchen. He later said:

‘Cooking is my favourite thing. My TA says we can do it here soon’. (P2, Y6)

The main response emerging from this question was that it was not that difficult to deal with the two environments being different. When asked specifically about some of the factors highlighted in Phase 1, these were generally not seen as important. For example:

‘Not really an issue. I’ve been in a school long enough to know what it’s about… I don’t suddenly go in and call teachers by their first names just because I do that here’. (P6, Y11)

It is certainly a finding of this paper that a shared placement can lead to behaviour deterioration in the school. However, this study indicates that the mechanism for this is not one of pupil confusion.

88 Sense of School Belonging

For a clearer picture of how sense of school belonging was related to outcomes, each pupil completed the PSSM scale. The scores for each individual pupil are presented in Table 2. The pupil numbers correspond to the participant details in Table 1.

Table 2: Individual Scores for Both the AP and School PSSM Scales

Pupil no. Setting PSSM

Score Caring Relations Acceptance Rejection P1 School 2.17 3.00 1.80 2.00 AP 4.83 5.00 4.80 4.67 P2 School 2.17 2.50 1.80 1.67 AP 3.44 4.00 3.00 3.67 P3 School 4.11 4.75 3.40 4.33 AP 4.67 4.75 4.40 4.33 P4 School 2.72 2.75 3.00 1.67 AP 4.94 5.00 4.80 5.00 P5 School 3.89 4.00 3.00 4.67 AP 4.89 5.00 4.60 5.00 P6 School 4.72 5.00 4.60 5.00 AP 3.00 4.75 2.20 2.33 P7 School 2.67 2.75 2.60 2.67 AP 4.22 4.50 4.20 3.33 P8 School 4.11 4.00 3.80 4.33 AP 4.89 5.00 4.80 5.00 P9 School 4.11 4.50 3.60 4.67 AP 3.44 3.50 3.40 3.00

89 RQ 2a) What is the relationship between pupils’ sense of belonging to the school and the outcome of the shared placement?

The relationship between sense of school belonging and outcome can be seen in Figure 4 and is visually represented in Graph 1. Outcome 1 (positive engagement) is associated with a higher sense of school belonging (mean = 4.19, SD = .31) than outcome 2 (mean 2.51, SD = .25). An independent samples Mann – Whitney U Test (see Appendix 21 for details) indicates that this difference is significant (p<.05). The analysis of the subscales indicate significant differences in caring relations (p<.05), feelings of acceptance (p<.05) and rejection (p<.05).

Figure 4: Relationship between sense of school belonging and outcome

Mean and SD for School Scale

Pupil Outcome PSSM Score Caring relations Acceptance Rejection n = 5 1: Positive engagement and behaviour in both settings 4.19*(.31) 4.45* (.45) 3.68* (.59) 4.60* (.28) n = 4 2: Deterioration in behaviour at school 2.51* (.25) 2.89* (.72) 2.30* (.60) 2.00* (.47) *p<.05

90 Graph 1: Bar chart showing the relationship between mean scores on the PSSM (School Version) by outcome group

RQ 2b) What is the relationship between pupils’ sense of belonging to the AP and the success of the shared placement?

The relationship between sense of AP belonging and outcome can be seen in Figure 5 and is visually represented in Graph 2. An independent samples Mann – Whitney U Test indicates no significant differences between outcome groups for Caring Relations (p>.05), Acceptance (p>.05), Rejection (p>.05) or PSSM Total Score (p>.05).

91 Figure 5: Relationship between sense of AP belonging and outcome

Mean and SD for AP Scale

Pupil Outcome PSSM Score Caring relations Acceptance Rejection n = 5 1: Positive engagement and behaviour in both settings 4.12 (.89) 4.60 (.63) 3.88 (1.08) 3.93 (1.21) n = 4 2: deterioration in behaviour at school 4.36 (.69) 4.63 (.48) 4.20 (.85) 4.17 (.79)

Graph 2: Bar chart showing the relationship between mean scores on the PSSM (AP Version) by outcome group

92 Within Group Analysis

As well as comparing the two outcome groups, within-group analysis was used to compare pupils’ sense of belonging to school with their sense of belonging to the AP. This was done as a whole group, and then separately for each outcome group.

When examining the whole group, a Related Samples (Paired) Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (see Appendix 22) found no significant differences between pupils’ sense of belonging at the school and sense of belonging at the AP (p>.05 for total scale and all sub-scales). For those who had positively engaged with the school (outcome group 1), a Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test found no significant differences between pupils’ sense of belonging at the school and sense of belonging at the AP (p>.05 for total scale and all sub-scales). Graph 3 displays a summary of this comparison.

Graph 3: Bar chart comparing the PSSM scores between provisions for pupils who positively engaged with both school and the AP (outcome group 1).

93 For pupils who further disengaged from school (outcome group 2), a Related Samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicated significant differences in the sense of belonging between settings for the caring relations (p<.05), acceptance (p<.05) rejection (p<.05) and total scales (p<.05). A visual summary of this comparison is shown in Graph 4.

Graph 4: Bar chart comparing the PSSM scores between provisions for pupils who further disengaged from school (outcome group 2).

As well as this quantitative data, the interview process also allowed all of the pupils to discuss their feelings in relation to belonging and acceptance. In line with the PSSM results, there was a strong theme that sense of belonging was greater at the AP than at school. For all the pupils, the direct question was asked ‘at which setting do you feel you belong more

94 at?’ Each pupil in group 2 named the AP in response without hesitation or any difficulty. When asked about the details, it was reported by a range of pupils that:

‘I like it more; I always have fun. I always get on with other people there. I do my work… I was not happy on my last day.’ (P1, Y5)

‘I have a few friends here [at school]. I got lots of friends at [the AP]… most of them awesome… they are similar to me.’(P10, Y6)

When asked further about belonging, many of the pupils felt like the school environment was not suited to them and the alternative provider was better for them.

‘I belong here definitely, It is well suited to me and I have fitted in well…prefer the hands on approach rather than all the writing at school.’ (P8, Y11)

When the outcomes were more positive, there was a strong theme from the pupils that their sense of belonging was high at the school. For one pupil, being accepted had been a significant part of why things were going well. He said that:

‘Recently, I was told that a lot of them have been asking about how I am doing… I didn’t think anyone actually cared. I was surprised that they wanted me to come back. They have seemed happy to see me and tell me I am doing well… yea, that made a big difference.’(P9,

Y11)

Key Findings

1) The mechanism of general confidence did not seem to relate strongly to outcomes. Instead, self-efficacy was indicated as a key mechanism.

2) Many pupils felt that a change in their aspirations had been a key mechanism in the shared placement.

3) There was little evidence that a shared placement led to confusion for the pupil. 4) A greater sense of school belonging, including positive peer relations and not feeling

rejected was associated with a greater likelihood of a positive outcome.

95 6) For those pupils who had disengaged further from the school, there was a significant

gap between their sense of school belonging and sense of belonging to the AP.

3.5.3 RQ3: What are the contextual conditions that either facilitate or inhibit the impact of