Children with Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: Relationship between Parents and Professionals

This multi-perspectival Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study explored how people in the ‘networks of concern’ talked about how they tried to make sense of the challenging behaviours of four children with severe learning disabilities. The study also aimed to explore what affected relationships between people. The study focussed on 4 children through interviewing their mothers, their teachers and the Camhs Learning Disability team members who were working with them. Two fathers also joined part of the interviews. All interviews were conducted separately using a semi-structured approach. IPA allowed both a consideration of the participant’s lived experiences and ‘objects of concern’ and a deconstruction of the multiple contexts of people’s lives, with a particular focus on disability. The analysis rendered five themes: the importance of love and affection, the difficulties, and the differences of living with a challenging child, the importance of being able to make sense of the challenges and the value of good relationships between people. Findings were interpreted through the lens of CMM (Coordinated Management of Meaning), which facilitated a systemic deconstruction and reconstruction of the findings. The research found that making sense of the challenges was a key concern for parents. Sharing meanings were important for people’s relationships with each other, including employing diagnostic and behavioural narratives. The importance of context is also highlighted including a consideration of how societal views of disability have an influence on people in the ‘network of concern’ around the child. A range of systemic approaches, methods and techniques are suggested as one way of improving services to these children and their families. It is suggested that adopting a ‘both/and’ position is important in such work - both applying evidence based approaches and being alert to and exploring the different ways people try and make sense of the children’s challenges. Implications for practice included helping professionals be alert to their constructions and professional narratives, slowing the pace with families, staying close to the concerns of families and addressing network issues.

Values and Beliefs Held About Parenting and Education by School Staff and Parents of Pupils with Special Educational Needs in the Context of Home- School Collaboration

Effective collaboration between school staff and parents of children identified as having special educational needs is considered to be an essential component of the child’s successful education. Differences in beliefs and perspectives adopted by the school staff and parents play an important role in the process of collaboration. However, little is known about the precise relationship between the beliefs and the process of collaboration. The purpose of this study was to explore the values and beliefs held by the school staff and parents in the areas of parenting and education. The study also explored the link between these beliefs and the process of collaboration within four parent-teacher dyads from mainstream primary schools. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews based on repertory grid technique were used. The findings highlighted an overall similarity in the participants’ views on collaboration and in their important beliefs about parenting and education. At the same time, differences in perspectives adopted by parents and teachers were also identified. The author discusses how these differences in perspectives are manifested in the process of collaboration from the point of Cultural Capital Theory. The factors such as power differentials, trust between parents and teachers, and limited resources and constraints of educational system are highlighted. Implication for practice for teachers and educational psychologists are discussed.

Gobernar la educación a través de los padrespolítica educativa y construcción de subjetividades neoliberales en Inglaterra. (Governing education through parents: education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England)

In this paper we explore the relationship between market norms and practices and the development of the figure of the parent within British education policy. Since the 1970s parents in England have been called upon to perform certain duties and obligations in their relation to the state. These duties include internalizing responsibility for risks, liabilities, inequities and the spectre of crises formerly managed by the state. Rather than characterize this situation in terms of the ‘hollowing of the state’, we argue that the role of the state includes enabling the functioning of the parent as a neoliberal subject, so that they may successfully harness the power of the market to their own advantage and (hopefully) minimize the kinds of risk generated through a deregulated education system. In this paper we examine how parents are compelled to embody certain market norms and practices as they navigate the field of education. In particular we focus on how parents are 1) summoned as consumers or choosers of education services, and thus encouraged to embody through their behaviour a competitive orientation; 2) summoned as governors and custodians of schools, with a focus on assessing financial and educational performance; and 3) summoned as producers and founders of schools, with a focus on entrepreneurial and innovative activity.

Governing through parents: a genealogical enquiry of education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England

In this paper we explore the various spaces and sites through which the figure of the parent is summoned and activated to inhabit and perform market norms and practices in the field of education in England. Since the late 1970s successive governments have called on parents to enact certain duties and obligations in relation to the state. These duties include adopting and internalizing responsibility for all kinds of risks, liabilities and inequities formerly managed by the Keynesian welfare state. Rather than characterize this situation in terms of the ‘hollowing of the state’, we argue that the role of the state includes enabling the functioning of the parent as a neoliberal subject so that they may successfully harness the power of the market to their own advantage and (hopefully) minimize the kinds of risk and inequity generated through a market-based, deregulated education system. In this paper we examine how parents in England are differently, yet similarly, compelled to embody certain market norms and practices as they navigate the field of education. Adopting genealogical enquiry and policy discourse analysis as our methodology, we explore how parents across three policy sites or spaces are constructed as objects and purveyors of utility and ancillaries to marketisation. This includes a focus on how parents are summoned as 1) consumers or choosers of education services; 2) governors and overseers of schools; and 3) producers and founders of schools.

Talking everyday science to very young children: a study involving parents and practitioners within an early childhood centre

The acquisition of everyday scientific concepts by 3-6 year old children attending early childhood institutions has been widely studied. In contrast, research on science learning processes among younger children is less extensive. This paper reports on findings from an exploratory empirical study undertaken in a ‘stay and play’ service used by parents with children aged 0-3 and located within an East London early childhood centre. The research team collaborated with practitioners to deliver a programme of activities aimed at encouraging parents’ confidence in their own ability to support emergent scientific thinking among their young children. The programme generated children’s engagement and interest. Parents and practitioners reported increased confidence in their ability to promote young children’s natural curiosity at home and in early childhood provision. The authors see no reason for positing qualitative differences between the way children acquire scientific and other concepts in their earliest years.