Including youngsters from
residential care in mainstream schools - is it possible?
Arne Tveit and Bjørn Arnesen,
Midt-Norsk Kompetansesenter for
Atferd. Trondheim
- Norway
Summary:
·
To support the normalization of young people
living in residential care is a key issue.
·
The municipal mainstream school represents a
main arena for normalization and inclusion.
·
Traditionally the school system has fallen
short in providing adequate competence and sufficient support in fulfilling
this task especially in regards to the special needs required for young people
from residential care.
·
The phase model with a three level strategy
presented in this paper focuses on the need for a mode of adaptation and a high
level of accept.
·
This paper presents experiences that especially
highlight the transition period for a young resident arriving at a new
mainstream school.
·
Six explicit criteria have been developed to
facilitate this transition process
·
Two main obstacles are underlined by the
support staff: 1) The widespread lack of recognition of other vocations than
teachers, such as social workers, within the school system and 2) The low
consciousness amongst teachers for the need of mutual reflection and colleague
guidance.
·
Collaboration between teachers, support staff
and residential care workers is crucial and in the daily work at school the
different professionals must find methods of enhancing reflection and guidance
from colleagues.
Introduction
We have for the last 7- 8 years been engaged in
practical development and research in the field of residential care and
educational placement. Our first project was a national survey conducted
in 1995-96, which looked into the educational opportunities and placement of
children living in residential care (Ollestad & Tveit, 1996). More recently
we have been involved in different projects and evaluation studies in
municipalities of Bjugn, Melhus and Trondheim in the central region of Norway. ( Arnesen and Tveit, 1998, 1999, Bonesrønning et al. 1999 and Arnesen
et al. 2000).
Youngsters placed in
residential care often express as an important goal for the future to be like
their peers. If they are to achieve this goal, connection
to mainstream school is a main task. It is important for these youngsters to
show their peers that they have succeeded in being equal, and the mainstream
school also gives them ample possibilities to make friends and be a part of the
normal peer social life. For those who are out of the mainstream school system
the impact to other peers is that something is wrong, and they thereby confirm
that they are outside the community of peers. The result is lack of information
and possibilities of making commitments with other peers. The school history for youngsters placed in
residential care is mostly a story of exclusion, bullying, social and academic
shortcoming, runaway behavior and so on
(Arnesen et al, 2000, Hermodsson, A, 2000). Nevertheless, the main goal for
young people staying in residential care is to be like their peers. Connection
to mainstream school is both the fulfillment of a goal and a dream for most
residents.
One of the main tasks for
residential care institutions, as it is for schools, is to do whatever is
necessary to motivate the young people to learn in a broad sense. International
and Norwegian studies point out that only a smaller part of residents in
residential care cope with the demands and obstructions that exist in being a
part of the school community. A Norwegian study of a residential care unit
(Clifford, G. and Arnesen, B., 1997), emphasize that staff were important in
the transition to care in the institution, although they were not so important
as the other young people there. Most of the informants had little contact with
other young people before admission, or felt excluded both at school and in
other contexts. One of the main reasons was that the transition to an
environment where one met other young people with comparable experiences, and
where they experienced a measure of understanding and acceptance, was
overwhelming. The sense of belonging to a group, especially a group of equal
peers, was described as a major and significant experience by more than half of
the informants. The fact that so many of these young people are disaffected and
distrust the teachers and other helpers is important to acknowledge. This
aspect has to be taken into consideration in regards to the experiences from
the projects in Trondheim and mainly Bjugn, which we will present later in this
paper. The main challenge for the youngster who has experienced so much
rejection is often closely connected to the amount of adaptation and support
given when he or she for the first time is received in a new school setting.
Many schools are unprepared, understaffed and lack the necessary competence and
routines. The schools need to establish a system of preparedness, or some sort
of "first-aid" unit, to make this transition work as well as
possible. There has to be a great deal of effort put into cooperation between
residential care units and the local school and in supporting the youngster in
a way so he or she can handle social rules, peer relations and activities, and
finally in making the necessary adjustments to the municipal school system. The
challenge is first of all to motivate and support the young people to manage
the more challenging mainstream school with its variation of peers and
henceforth the need of equivalent social skills.
Inclusion
for all - except children with challenging behavior?
Integration and inclusion
has been the official policy in Norway for more than twenty years. Public
figures show that over 99% of all children between 7-15 years of age attend
their local municipal school. This does not seem to be the case for children
living in residential care. Our research (Ollestad &Tveit 1996) shows that
34.4% of the children up to age 15 living in public residential care received
their compulsory education in segregated settings outside mainstream schools.
Our sample of institutions consisted both of institutions with short-term and
long-term attendance, but the number of segregated pupils did not differ
significantly between the two. Furthermore we found that of the approximately
2/3 of our sample who attended the local school, almost 60% received part or
all their education in separated settings within the mainstream school. It is
natural to question if our research data is outdated, since it goes back to the
mid- nineties. Unfortunately there is little new data to verify our findings.
More resent research directed towards the exclusion of children and adolescents
with behavioral and emotional problems tend to support our conclusions. All in
all our and newer surveys reveal a tendency towards extensive segregated
education for children who challenge the school system through their behavior.
The Educational Law of Norway allows special
education in special units both within and outside the mainstream school. For
some children with special problems and needs such placement is regarded as
necessary. The placement must, however, be based on a specialist assessment by
the local «Pedagogisk- Psykologisk Tjeneste» (Psychological-Educational
Services), and in each case the local school board/or principal must make an
«enkelt vedtak» (statement of provision of special resources). The parents have
the right to make a complaint about this «enkelt vedtak».
For the last fifty years the grounds for making the
decision to place a young person outside the mainstream should always be
considered only if it benefits the need of the individual child. However,
through a change in the Educational Law in 2000 the local education authorities
(e.g. the local headmaster) can exclude a child from school and have it moved
to a neighbour school or some special unit on the grounds that he or she is a
menace to fellow pupils or teachers. We don’t have data that indicates what
this new policy has led to. There is reason to believe that the target group at
hand will experience increased exclusion.
Our data from 1996 before the law was changed reveals that for as many
as 50% of the children in the survey who received their education in separate
settings, a specialist assessment was lacking. This result indicates that for a
great number of children in residential care their placement in special units
or settings may be based on grounds other than their special educational needs.
This in itself represents a serious violation of these students’ legal rights.
On the whole the issue of placement is a complex
one. Available international research data (Kauffman and Lloyd 1995) show «that
place alone is not the critical ingredient in helping students attain important
social and academic goals» (p. 15). Even more than other children, the ones
living in residential care need acceptance, understanding and care. They want
to be regarded as normal children and youngsters, especially amongst their
peers. On this basis the educational placement of students living in residential
care raises some important challenges. These children are uprooted from their
neighbourhood, families and friends and have to adjust to a completely new,
often very different setting, with new adult and peer relations in the
institution as well as in school. They are removed from their home environment,
often in a crisis situation and are very vulnerable. They may be in a state of
mind somewhere between shock from the separation from their home environment
and hope for the future. For many of these children placement in a mainstream
school setting from day one proves to be a disaster. Our survey shows that the
schools as well as the institutions have great difficulties in establishing the
right educational provisions to meet the individual needs of the students. One
of the reasons for this is the fact that the placement is often made without
preparation. Necessary information is lacking and teachers report that they
feel more or less like they are blindfolded in their attempt to meet
the individual student in the most appropriate way.
In Norway some municipal authorities are seriously
looking into different ways of coping with these problems. A main strategy
seems to be an introduction of a temporary small and supportive educational
unit either within or outside the local school, which has as its main
objective providing a safe and prepared introduction to the mainstream
school. The greatest danger in choosing this temporary solution is, of course,
that it ends up as a permanent segregated educational placement. As we will
illustrate in the next section experience show that the local school
authorities seem more likely to succeed in the transition from the segregated
setting into the mainstream when certain measures are taken and obstacles
overcome.
The phase
model - a three-level strategy
The project we have studied most closely the last
five years is taking place in the municipality of Bjugn in the region of Fosen
in Sør- Trøndelag County. The population of the commune is approximately 4700
people and there are four schools that all educate children in the age 6- 15
years. Within the boundaries of the commune there are situated two residential
care units, one public and one private, with a total number of 12 - 18
residents mainly in the age of 12 - 18 years. These institutions represent a
unique challenge to the local schools and support units. The institutions
started early in the 1990’s and the local competence and experience in
addressing the problems these children represent in the educational field was
at that time rather slim.
Our part in the project has been a diverse one,
partly as evaluators and partly as counsellors. We have been able to follow it
very closely and have documented several interesting results (Arnesen and Tveit, 1998 & 1999,
Arnesen et al. 2000). The main object of this paper is to present the core of
the project and some new experiences concerning the transition into mainstream
school that have not been published previously.
In developing an adaptive approach to the education
of young people living in residential care this and other projects have
developed what is named as a phase- model. It has three different levels: the
receiving level, the stabilization level and the transition level.
In another project at a school situated in Trondheim
staff have developed (Bonesrøning et al 1999) a system where they offer all
these three levels within the framework of the local school and the ordinary
classroom setting. This is probably the ideal way of securing a good inclusion.
In the Bjugn-project, however, due to the high
amount of students from the institutions and other local conditions, they have
chosen to establish a separate unit to take care of the first two levels in
this approach and to contribute to the realisation of the third level, the
transition into the local mainstream school.
Since the project started in 1996 the main focus had
been on building up competence in the support unit and improving the quality of
the receiving and stabilization process. Less attention had been given to the
difficult task of working towards and within the mainstream school to attain
full inclusion. There were of course some students who had been successfully
included but far too often one of two things happened. The student was either
kept too long in the separate unit before entering into the transition process,
or the mainstream schools refused to take serious responsibility and the
special unit worker would follow the residential care student all the way as a
permanent extra resource/teacher. The student might therefore be physically
integrated, but would not necessarily feel included.
Focus on the
transition level
From the very start of the project the fear of
making this separate unit, called “Nylandet”, a permanent placement for the target group was highlighted. During the school year 2001-2002 special
measures were finally undertaken to counteract such a development.
We at MKA were asked to assist and give counselling
to the separate unit in this respect. The task was called “”Nylandet in the
local school” and it addressed the challenge of how the staff (teachers and
social workers) from the separate unit could work successfully towards and
within the local school to support the transition process in collaboration with
the mainstream teachers. The main target that was focused by the staff from the
separate unit was the complex area of how to gradually transform responsibility
over to the mainstream classroom teacher and reduce their own importance and
relationship with the student and hence prepare their withdrawal.
Through dedicated work towards this aim the staff
developed a number of criteria to indicate the de-escalation of their own
presence in the mainstream school in the process of a successful inclusion of
the student:
1.
The
student must be prepared and motivated both socially and academically.
2.
The
mainstream teachers must be prepared and dedicated to the task and an adaptive
educational program must be implemented.
3.
The
classmates must be informed and motivated.
4.
The
residential care institution must be informed and prepared for the change and a
closer collaboration with the mainstream teachers must take place.
5.
The
possibility to temporarily reverse the process and escalate must be kept open.
6.
The
process must be continuously evaluated.
The experiences from applying this set of criteria
are limited but positive. During the school year of 2001-2002 seven of twelve
secondary level students (13- 15 year
old) attended the local schools most or all of the time. The other five were
still mainly in the support unit. Some of them came into the residential care
institution later in the school year and needed more time to be able to handle
the transition into the mainstream school.
For the seven residential students who attended the mainstream schools
applying the criteria above seemed to increase the level of success. When the
support staff managed to withdraw from the class room parallel to a stronger
engagement by the classroom teacher, when the classroom teacher had the
necessary help to put up an adaptive programme both academically and socially
and when the level of accept towards the “residentials” amongst peers and staff
had improved, the students seemed to manage to stay on and become a part of the
local school.
Two main
obstacles
The staff from the support unit do, however report
of some important obstacles that must be overcome to ensure more lasting
results. One of these has to do with the lack of recognition from the
mainstream teachers in regarding the staff from “Nylandet” as a genuine support
group. Traditionally schools have had to depend a great deal on their own,
without much outside help. There is no culture for mixing different vocational
groups and diverse competence in school. The teachers have had the arena much
to themselves. Social workers therefore have a hard time being recognized as
equal partners in Norwegian schools, although there are now some positive signs
of change in this attitude (Klefbeck and Ogden 1995, Tveit and Ollestad 1996,
Lichtwark and Clifford 1996, Arnesen and Tveit 1998 og.1999. Arnesen et al 2000 ).
A second obstacle is the lack of cooperation and
opportunities for shared reflection between the professionals from the
mainstream school and the separate unit. Time is blamed as the main reason for
this condition. Our experience is that lack of time is far from the only
reason. The mainstream teachers report that they have little experience from
colleague support and reflection amongst themselves. School in Norway has very little tradition for professional
colleague guidance. This is far more the case within the social and health care
systems.
The school authorities in Bjugn were aware of this
problem and therefore supported the introduction of a guidance program in all
the schools. This program originates from Great Britain (Ward 1996,1998) and
has been adapted from a British and milieu oriented context to a Norwegian and
school-oriented context. (Arnesen 2000, Tveit 2001). Ward named his framework
–”Opportunity led work” in our Norwegian version we named it ”Decision oriented
work”. The method is based on the professional’s consciousness towards making
decisions in their encounter with young people. In
short, this method focuses on the great number of opportunities you meet in
your everyday job and how to get into the best position to help the young
people, creating opportunities and thus achieving long-term results. So the
crux of the matter is the skill of the individual social welfare worker and
educator to see and make use of the opportunities at hand. Our experience from working
with this method on a broad scale within a number of schools is that it
enhances the amount of resources present in the professional community within
the different systems and it increases people’s faith in own ability and practice
(Tveit 2001).
This was also a side effect in Bjugn but we have too
little data to conclude the impact of introducing this method as to level of
effect on contributing to better collaboration and professional acceptance
between the mainstream teachers and the staff from the separate unit. To
implement such a method it has to be followed up by the schools’ leadership
giving it priority amongst the daily routines. There has to be set off an
appropriate amount of time and the guidance sections have to be structured and
prepared.
These two main obstacles have to get the attention
from everyone it concerns or they will hamper the necessary process of
attaining successful inclusion for young residents under care into the
mainstream school. Collaboration and understanding between teachers, support
staff and residential staff is a crucial issue.
All in all the results
from Bjugn and Trondheim should draw more attention to the possibilities than
the obstacles. The professionals in both the school and the care system would
facilitate the inclusion process if they adapted some of these positive
experiences, such as focusing on the importance of highlighting the transition
period and a follow trough system similar to the phase model described in this
paper.
Literature:
-
Arnesen,B. (2000)Hvordan styrke kompetanse gjennom læring av egen praksis? Embla
5/2000 s 36- 43
-
Arnesen, B. and Tveit, A. (1999):
Evalueringsrapport: Tilpasset
grunnskole-undervisning for institusjonsungdom i Bjugn kommune. Trondheim,
Midt-Norsk Komptansesenter for Atferd.
-
Arnesen, B and Tveit, A. (1998):
Evalueringsrapport: Tilpasset
grunnskoleundervisning for institusjonsbarn i Bjugn kommune. Rogneby
Kompetansesenter.
-
Arnesen, B., Jahnsen, H., Nergaard, S.,
Ollestad, A. and Tveit, A. (2000): ”De umulige”
– er det mulig? Grunnskole – og ungdom bosatt i barneverninstitusjoner. En
bok om problematferd og inkludering. Lillegården kompetansesnters skriftserie
2/2000
-
Bonesrønning et al. (1999): Sverresborgprosjektet: Et prosjekt med fokus
på å utvikle et skoletilbud for ungdom som bor i ungdomshjem. Sverresborg
skole, Trondheim
-
Clifford, G and Arnesen, B. (1997) Drømmen om selvstendighet. Ungdom vurderer
opphold ved en utredningsinstitusjon drevet av det fylkeskommunale barnevernet.
Arbeidsrapport 3/97. Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Midt-Norge.
-
Ollestad, A. and Tveit, A. (1996): Barnevernsbarna – en segregert gruppe i
skolen! En undersøkelse om grunnskoletilbudet til barn og unge bosatt i
fylkeskommunale barneverninstitusjoner. Rogneby Kompetansesenter.
-
Tveit, A. (2001) Fokus på beslutningsprosessen – presentasjon av en veiledningsmetode.
Norsk Skoleblad 29/2001 s 24-26.
-
Tveit,
A. and Ollestad, A. (1996) Teachers and
residential care workers: «They meet and talk, but do they co- operate?»
( A translation of an article published in a Norwegian journal for social- and
child care workers, «Embla» 1/96)
-
Ward,
A. Opportunity led work (1996)
Social work education 14/1996 s. 89 – 105
-
Ward,
A. and McMahan, .L. (1998) Intuition is not enough Routledge 1998
About
the authors:
Arne Tveit has a
background as a teacher with a degree in Education from the University of Trondheim. He has long experience from
teaching children and young people in elementary and secondary schools. He
worked for more than a decade as a guidance councilor at an alternative
secondary school for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties. His
research has been directed towards alternative educational programmes and the
education of young people living in residential care. For a period of six years
he was working at governmental special educational center for children and
young people with social and emotional problems. Since 1998 he has been working
at Midt- Norsk Kompetansesenter for Atferd (The Central Norwegian Centre of
Competence of Behavior), a small independent center situated in Trondheim.
Bjørn Arnesen has a background as a social worker with a degree in Social Work from the University of Trondheim. He has long experience with children and young people in juvenile recreation centres, municipal social welfare service and institutions. His research has been directed towards institutional research. In recent years, he has primarily studied the school system of children and what the school system offers for children and youngsters in child welfare institutions. For a period of four years he was working at governmental special educational center for children and young people with social and emotional problems. Since 1998 he has been working at Midt - Norsk Kompetansesenter for Atferd (The Central Norwegian Centre of Competence of Behaviour), a small independent center situated in Trondheim.
Address:
Arne Tveit, arne@mka.no
+4773 53 56 45/+4792667968
Bjørn Arnesen, bjørn@mka.no
+4773535646/+4792660580
Midt- Norsk Kompetansesenter for
Atferd
Jarleveien 4 , 7041 Trondheim
Norway