An evidence-based curriculum model for girls with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties: transforming evidence
Melanie Nind, Georgie Boorman & Gill Clarke,
University of Southampton, UK
Abstract
This paper reports on the process and findings of a two year Knowledge Transfer Partnership
(part-funded by the ESRC). The goal of the partnership between the university and an
independent school for secondary-aged girls with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
was to develop a holistic, transferable curriculum model that was evidence-based.
Independent schools seeking to develop partnerships with local authorities under the umbrella
of government Regional Inclusion Partnerships are expected to demonstrate best practice as
a minimum and Centres of Excellence are preferred. The Knowledge Transfer Partnership
was therefore central to the school’s plan to establish itself as the partner of choice for local
authorities in the South of England, by developing a research-informed model of education
within the Every Child Matters Framework. Development of the model based on the best
knowledge available was beyond the capacity of the school on its own and the partnership
brought with it a full-time researcher and input from senior academics in the fields of gender
and inclusion. The challenge was to collate and interpret relevant research and theoretical
knowledge and to identify, synthesise, and apply appropriate approaches to developing the
model.
Girls with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties are a minority in a field dominated by
boys; they receive less attention from policy-makers, teachers and researchers, and less
resources (Osler & Vincent, 2003). Behavioural, emotional and social difficulties itself is a field
where particular pedagogies are under-developed and under-researched (Lewis & Norwich,
2004). Therefore, looking for ‘what works’ with girls with these difficulties was not a
straightforward option; we had to create this knowledge. The evidence used in the project
transpired to be a mix of that collected from the stakeholders themselves (particularly the girls
whose voices were central in the project) and that generated from action research within the
school, all of which was informed by theoretical perspectives and educational and social
values. Thus, experiential, presentational, propositional and practical knowledge (Heron &
Reason, 1997) had an important role in this evidence based work, illustrating alternative
views of how we might understand the role and types of evidence that can, does and should
inform curricula for marginalised groups.
Introduction
ISEC 2010 provides a good opportunity to share the process and findings of our
recently completed Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) project in which university
academics teamed up with an independent school for secondary-aged girls with
behavioural, emotional and social difficulties in the south of England with the aim of
developing a holistic, transferable curriculum model that was evidence-based. We
could have communicated this under many of the conference themes, for the project
has been very much about what inclusion means for the previously excluded girls,
about accessing their voices, and about collaborative engagement. Yet there is
something about the notion of evidence of ‘what works’ that has formed an intriguing
central strand to this work and it is this that is the focus of the paper.
From the school’s perspective making their educational model evidence-based was
important for their status as a Centre of Excellence, which in turn was important for
their relationship with the local authorities who might consider placing students with
them by becoming regarded as the partner of choice. Development of a model based
on the best knowledge available was beyond the capacity of the school on its own
and so the partnership was formed to address this. A joint project with the university
brought with it additional knowledge, resources and a particular status. Ostensibly
the challenge was to collate and interpret relevant research and theoretical
knowledge and to identify, synthesise, and apply appropriate approaches to
developing the model. In reality the challenges were much more complex, the
agendas more nuanced and the process more untidy!
At ISEC 2005 I (MN) convened a symposium and presented a paper (Nind &
Wearmouth, 2005) on a systematic review on the evidence base for pedagogical
approaches for inclusion. On reflection in writing this paper it is now significant that
the audience for the systematic review was so generic. The review was
commissioned by the Teacher Training Agency in England (now the Training and
Development Agency for Schools) to provide high quality evidence of practical use
for trainee teachers, new teachers and teacher educators. The process involved
taking evidence from highly contextualised studies and reducing this to what could be
safely claimed to be effective practice in the abstract. From this, various practitioners
were expected to take the knowledge and apply it to their diverse specific contexts.
The KTP was fundamentally different in that the information-application chain was so
much shorter, making the question not ‘what works?’ but ‘what has worked
elsewhere that might work here?’ together with ‘what works here and has it worked
elsewhere too?’.
The challenge
The school, which we shall call Kahlo school, is an independent provision ‘for girls
whose behavioural, emotional and social needs are too complex for mainstream
schools’. The motivation for establishing the school was concern that girls who are
excluded from mainstream schools get a raw deal. The school’s founder wanted to
provide a small, safe space, based on secure attachments, respect, voice and
choice, and personalised knowledge of the students in their contexts, which may
have been chaotic. There was an agenda to re-engage the girls and help them build
aspirations for their futures, and a concern therefore with what would help to achieve
this. Thus, this was provision that would be guided every bit as much by values as by
evidence. At the start of the project there seven pupils and twelve staff, in a small
building pursuing a subject-based curriculum with an emphasis on the core subjects
literacy, numeracy and science (the latter two meeting substantial resistance from the
girls) and outdoor education, with some therapy occurring alongside. At the end of
the two-years there were sixteen pupils, fifteen staff, several buildings and an
integrated, personalised curriculum.
The primary issues for the Kahlo School concerned:

what the curriculum should look like - its shape and content;

the relationship between the formal and informal in the curriculum;

the role of the school ethos and culture; and

how these came together and could be articulated to others for transfer and
wider implementation.
Given that the school was very new there were not decades-old ingrained practices
to be unpicked. Nonetheless as it was already up and running we needed to consider
not just what should be in place, but what was in place and how it was working.
There was real potential for the curriculum to be shaped alongside the school’s
growth.
The KTP project was originally conceived as having an action research type design,
in which evidence was gathered from primary and secondary sources, a curriculum
model devised that was informed by this, implemented in stages, tested, evaluated
and revised, ultimately leading to a model that could be explained, justified and
transferred to new settings. Various key factors militated against this project design
however, including:

The time it took to gather the primary data, that is, the perspectives of the
stakeholders in the school. This required a rigorous ethical approval and
informed consent process, the development of rapport with people
traditionally regarded as hard-to-reach (the girls and their home
environments), careful negotiation to access people who were actually hardto-reach (the social workers and local authority personnel), and the
development of innovative data collection methods that would engage the
girls and facilitate their meaningful input into the project. Each of these
processes was prolonged and required considerable sensitivity.

The pace of change in the school being faster that the evidence gathering.
Early indications that the school was already effective for the first cohort of
girls meant high interest from placing officers. The initial premise that
provision for girls with the profiles that the school catered for was both lacking
and needed was endorsed. Increasing student numbers meant more staff,
widening the skills base and bringing curricular expertise.

The positioning of the full-time project member as a university employee
located in the school but not a full part of it (even moving out of the building
as space became a premium) weakened the influence and potential for action
research as a process of shared reflection and experimentation.
Rather than designing and testing curriculum developments in stages, there was a
more fluid process of data collection, analysis, discussion and curriculum
development, with the influences of the research on development subtle and
sometimes indirect. Developments in the school happened in response to the
research process itself as well as as a product of the research findings
Evidence from previous research
Pertinent evidence from previous research was available from a range of key
sources:
a) systematic reviews pertaining to (i) special educational needs and inclusive
education generally; (ii) pupils with behavioural, emotional and social
difficulties; and (iii) mental health promotion;
b) individual studies;
c) knowledge combining research and practice culminating in good practice
guidance;
d) theoretical work in sociology and psychology, e.g. on resilience, attachment
and communication; and
e) research written for/communicated by young people.
Review of this evidence base indicated the heterogeneity of young people labelled
with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties and how little of the work in this
field had been conducted with girls, who form a minority in a field dominated by boys,
receiving less attention and resources (Osler & Vincent, 2003). This raised major
issues for the school’s aim to have provision relevant to the girls’ needs that did not
negate their gender. The findings from research conducted with boys cannot simply
be taken and said to apply generally, or to girls in particular. This made the primary
research with the girls all the more important. Finding evidence of ‘what works’ with
girls with these difficulties was not an option - we had to create this knowledge.
The systematic reviews pertaining to pupils with behavioural, emotional and social
difficulties were of primary not secondary-aged children (Evans et al., 2003; Harden
et al., 2003). Moreover, Harden et al. (2003) failed to find strong evidence (e.g. from
randomized control trials) for the effectiveness of any strategies, although they found
a medium weight of evidence for the effectiveness of strategies based on a
psychotherapeutic model, i.e. nurture groups (limited by being based on interim
findings), provision of ‘a quiet place’ and use of mentors (each limited by being based
on small sample sizes). Evans et al. (2003) pointed to a bigger problem with the
evidence base:
There was little evidence within the studies identified for this review of a shift
away from seeing emotional and behavioural difficulties as problems located
within individuals (the so-called ‘medical model’ of EBD) towards a more
context based approach, where behaviour is seen as a response to particular
situations. There was also little sign within our studies of a greater focus on
social justice and equal opportunities in framing the context within which
support for pupils is offered. Indeed most studies were not framed in the
context of supporting children at all, but were framed in terms of trying to
reduce social or behavioural ‘deficiencies’. Moreover, none of the studies
consulted with children with or without the label EBD for their views on
possible intervention strategies. (p.4)
Lewis & Norwich (2004) have similarly argued that the field of behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties is one where particular approaches are under-developed and
under-researched. There were real limitations then, in what syntheses of research
evidence could offer the project. Nonetheless, some important principles emerged
from systematic reviews:

the peer group is an essential resource and peer group interactive
approaches with careful planning and delineation of roles are effective in
including pupils with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms
(Nind & Wearmouth, 2004, 2006);

peer group interactive approaches are advantageous in making skill
development embedded in classroom activity socially meaningful (Nind &
Wearmouth, 2006);

the teacher has a powerful role in shaping learning interactions, which when
based in the learners’ experiences, involving direct experiences and realistic
problems, and offering multiple opportunities to engage with the learning
situation and with people, foster academic and social inclusion (Rix et al.,
2006);

successful inclusive pedagogies are based on social interactions which use,
monitor and develop pupils’ social engagement for its own sake and as a way
of facilitating the development of knowledge via authentic subject-related
activity using different modalities (Sheehy et al., 2009);

approaches to mental health in schools which cover more than one base are
more effective than single focused approaches (Lister Sharpe et al., 2000;
Adi et al., 2007);

affective learning needs to be integrated across the curriculum and not
isolated in specific curriculum areas or lessons (Weare & Gray, 2003);

schools can promote emotional well-being with warm relationships in which
school staff demonstrate respectful and empathic compassionate concern,
positive behaviour management, learning from peers including through
mentoring, mediation, conflict resolution and buddying, opportunities for
student voice with students and staff empowered to make real choices, and
have appropriate levels of genuine decision-making and responsibility, and
parental involvement and pedagogical connections with learning outside
school and in the home (Nind & Weare, 2009);

mental health skills are critical for developing young people’s resilience
(Catalano et al., 2002; Zins et al., 2004) - being resilient means that young
people are able to deal with risky or stressful circumstances and still have
positive outcomes - their resilience being a protective factor;

a healthy, inclusive and resilient school is critical - using a more socio-cultural
framework (Goodley, 2005) or whole school approach (Stewart et al., 2004)
being resilient means that the school is able to deal with risky or stressful
circumstances and still have positive outcomes.
Individual studies and practical and theoretical guidance, which were sources not
subject to the same kind of quality review, provided further helpful guidance:

positive attachment experiences in school are associated with engaged,
empathic individuals who present as better equipped to adapt to the potential
challenge of learning opportunities in the social setting of the school (Cairns,
2002);

students rely on teachers to provide a secure base - the right balance
between safety and challenge - within a school setting to provide an optimal
learning experience (Riley, 2009);

social and emotional development should be addressed alongside academic
elements (Cooper & Tiknaz 2007);

students’ transitions may be fragmented or frustrated (Pais, 2003) and
support may be needed to achieve a more positive and continuous
experience of transitions (Devadason, 2007);

interventions are beyond the scope of the school alone and require a
partnership between school, student and home environment
(Panayiotopoulos, 2004) with regular dialogue enhancing this partnership
(Taliaferro et al., 2009) and supporting non-defensive communication patterns
(Weare, 2004);

introducing a school based home-school support worker can be effective in
working with as opposed to excluding students, preventative work, and
improving student attachment to school and community (Panayiotopoulos,
2004; Pritchard, 2001);

listening is crucial to establishing a collaborative classroom (Veck, 2009) as
engaging students in dialogue regarding problem behaviour outwith lessons
(Atici, 2007);

school staff can, through their positive interactions with students, influence
students’ perceptions of themselves self as worthy (Cooper, 1993);

there is a link between student voice, self-awareness, and the impact of
actions on others (Beattie, 2007) with reflection and self-awareness
contributing to spaces in which individual transformations can take place
(McLeod & Wright, 2009);

students with previous experience of exclusion value teachers’ teaching
ability but most of all their ability to provide pastoral care, which earns
respect, trust and motivation (Pomeroy, 1999);

restorative justice approaches in which repairing harm to relationships and
people is more important than assigning blame or dispensing punishment
(Wright, 1999) via mediation can be effective (Wilcox with Hoyle, 2004; Kane
et al., 2007), especially where there is a compatible positive ethos (Lloyd et
al., 2007);

increased understanding by staff of mental health issues and processes
underlying student behaviour can enable a different reaction to student
behaviours, potentially reframing interactions (Panayiotopoulos 2004);

more flexible application of school rules can enable more positive teacherstudent relationships, and increase the likelihood of rules being considered
fair and just (te Riele, 2007);
It did not matter to the school that these principles and guidance evolved from
different kinds and qualities of evidence. The intention was not to apply programmes
which required strict programme fidelity, or to adopt programmes wholesale and
uncritically. Indeed little of the evidence informing the model came from the ‘gold
standard’ of randomized control trials (RCTs). Some came from robust evaluation of
programmes using ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ indicators (Rootman et al,. 2001) and some came
from research of local, small scale interventions designed by keen individuals or
small teams (thereby not lending themselves to RCTs).
Evidence from the primary research
The primary research for the KTP involved asking parents, carers, social workers,
educational advisers, school and college staff, local authority, Connexions, relevant
local police and health service personnel what was important in educating girls with
behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. This was done through semi-structured
interviews of 45-90 minutes, often by telephone for professionals, and in face-to-face
informal dialogue with families. Key themes in the responses related to the
importance of:

a personalised approach to students, based on thorough assessment and
responsive to their interests and voice, supported through engagement with the
student beyond the confines of the school/ school day, and enhanced by
knowledge of the home environment;

wraparound care to provide an inextricable link between welfare and learning,
home and school;

proactive staff who could anticipate issues and concerns and ‘read’ the student;

a communication style in staff which is patient, listening, non-judgemental, nonconfrontational, not overly hierarchical, ‘seed-planting’ rather than dictating, and
sensitive to variations in students’ mood and indicators of underlying issues;

a secure base with a balance between the challenge of learning and the safety
offered by trusting relationships;

team working to optimise the benefits of different perspectives and to enhance
outcomes for students;

flexible practices which centre on the interests of the student (including in relation
to subjects/topics taught, student learning styles, and time spent on each task);

identity work with students to improve awareness of self and the impact of their
actions on others, encouraging ownership and responsibility for their own
behaviours, increasing independence in making and executing positive choices,
improving self-worth and self-image;

goal/target setting by identifying realistic achievements, raising awareness of
options, and identifying a career path;

helping students through transitions by recognising these as difficult times and
investing additional support to enable successful transitions;

building and maintaining relationships requiring empathy;

a balance between formality and informality of approach;

meaningful, authentic, enjoyable learning experiences, including independent
inquiry, critical thinking and problem solving, and creative expression;

celebrating achievements in terms of capacity and outcomes; and

removing barriers to learning, including anxieties by developing coping skills.
In a more prolonged set of engagements, we sought to find out the girls’ views on
what was important about their school, how it compared with previous educational
experiences, and what they wanted in terms of improving it. We also sought their
stories of educational engagement and disengagement, inclusion and exclusion,
looking for what these could tell us about what did and didn’t work for them. The
methods for gathering the girls’ views were largely visual and activity based following
evidence that this is more engaging because it reduces dependence on
verbal/written literacy (Hill, Laybourn & Borland, 1996). Additionally, a digital
dimension enabled the choice of methods to reflect youth culture (Walker, 2008) that
had proven popular, motivating, engaging in work with students with behavioural,
emotional and social difficulties (BECTA, 2003; Carrington, Allen & Osmolowski,
2007). Methods included a ‘Big Brother’ style video diary, photo elicitation work and
digital comic strip format educational journeys. The girls’ data raised the importance
of:

relationships with peers and staff including knowing everyone, identifying with
each others’ experiences, looking out for each other, understanding each other
and listening;

the school’s caring ethos and kind, helpful staff who are responsive and give
people a chance and don’t pre-judge them;

an ordered, comfortable, inclusive physical/social environment and spaces to chill
out, calm down, socialise and concentrate;

positive alternatives to restraint and exclusion;

comparatively relaxed rules about jewellery and make-up allowing selfexpression as girls;

opportunities for choice e.g. meals; and

reciprocity in which their compliance is given in exchange for positive belief in
them from school staff, care, accreditation and so forth.
Using evidence to build the curriculum model
What emerged as the educational model for the school was something that captured
the essence of the various principles from earlier research together with key
messages from the stakeholders, especially the girls. This meant that the model
included:

the underpinning foundations for everything that went on in the school;

the core strategies informed by and compatible with these foundations;

the learning experiences based on all of these; and

the overall school ethos which encircled the entirety of the provision.
While claims can be made for the role of evidence in informing the educational
model, the process of moving from evidence to model was in no sense a scientific
one. This evolved. It emerged from dialogue, sometimes smoothly but more often it
was a real struggle to articulate what was happening that was good, what could and
should be happening and wasn’t, and how all this could be communicated. There
was a process of going back and forth between the primary and secondary data such
that core messages from the literature were endorsed by the girls and vice versa: for
example, their photo elicited ‘best bits about the school’ being the important physical
spaces for being together, or for calming down, supported Christensen, James &
Jenks (2000, p.153) contention of ‘the importance of material space to concepts of
belonging and identity’ and the importance of attachment and relationships in the
literature being just as live in the girls’ accounts.
The model continues to emerge through the use of visual media. It was liberating to
decide on a web platform as a means to communicate the educational model as this
meant we were not restricted to what could be said through words on a page. The
multi-modal affordances of the web platform enabled us to retain some of the
interactivity of elements of the model and the voices that contributed to it, to avoid a
linear representation of practice, and to capture something of the subtleties of the
interactions between the elements of the ethos, foundations, strategies and learning
experiences. The multi-modal approach supports our desire to share with multiple
audiences (professionals, girls and their families), inviting reflective, active
responses, rather than to just ‘tell’ practitioners what works.
Reflections about evidence
The KTP project was a fascinating opportunity to look at how evidence emerges in
context and how it is applied in context. As Thomas (2010) argues, educationalists
and academics need to acknowledge that there are different types of evidence, but
these types are not hierarchical with some better than other; instead they serve
different purposes and offer checks and balances. There are also different types of
knowledge, and the different sources of evidence in this project enabled us to work
with experiential, presentational, propositional and practical knowledge (Heron &
Reason, 1997).
There were no obvious clashes or contradictions between the different kinds of
evidence and knowledge, it was more that the primary data illuminated ways forward
for applying the secondary data. As argued previously, ‘reviewing the literature gives
teachers evidence-related ideas to work with - it does not give them a recipe to
follow’ (Nind & Wearmouth, 2006). The very applied nature of the research in the
project allowed us to make the most of what Hammersley (2008, p.4) refers to as the
important role of ‘local knowledge and situational judgement’ in linking research with
policy and practice. Similarly, as Whitty (2007, p.3) reminds us, ‘what works today
may not work tomorrow’ making the important questions ones of ‘why something
works and, equally important, why it works in some contexts and not in others’. In this
way we were able to address the specific opportunities and constraints in operation
at Kahlo school, making the research more useful than simply finding out what works
and why; as recommended by Edwards (2000, cited by Sebba, 2007), understanding
the contextual factors is vital.
References
Adi, Y., Killoran, A., Janmohamed, K. & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007) Systematic Review
of the Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Mental Wellbeing in Primary
Schools: Universal Approaches Which do not Focus on Violence or Bullying.
London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Atici, M. (2007) A small-scale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroom
management and methods for dealing with misbehaviour, Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 12(1), 15-27.
Beattie, M. (2007) Creating a self: a narrative and holistic perspective, International
Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(13), 1-26.
BECTA, 2003. Using ICT to teach difficult pupils with emotional and behavioural
difficulties.
http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=tl&catcode=ss_tl_inc_ac_03&rid=1
860
Cairns, K. (2002) Attachment, Trauma & Resilience: Therapeutic Caring for
Children. British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
Carrington, S., Allen, K. & Osmolowski, D. (2007) Visual narrative: a technique to
enhance secondary students’ contribution to the development of inclusive,
socially just school environments – lessons from a box of crayons. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs 7, 8-15.
Catalano, R.F., Berglund, L., Ryan, A.M., Lonczak, H.S. & Hawkins, J. (2002)
Positive youth development in the United States: Research finding on evaluations
of positive youth development programmes.’ Prevention and Treatment, 5(15).
Christensen, P., A. James, and C. Jenks. (2000) Home and movement: children
constructing ‘family time’. In S.L. Holloway, and G. Valentine (eds) Children’s
geographies: playing, living, learning, pp. 139-55. London: Routledge.
Cooper, P. (1993) Learning from pupils’ perspectives, British Journal of Special
Education, 20(4), 129-133.
Cooper, P. & Tiknaz, Y. (2007) Nurture Groups in School and at Home: Connecting
with Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Devadason, R. (2007) Constructing coherence? Young adults’ pursuit of meaning
through multiple transitions between work, education and unemployment, Journal
of Youth Studies, 10(2), 203-221.
Evans,. J, Harden, A., Thomas, J. & Benefield, P. (2003) Support for pupils with
emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in mainstream primary classrooms: a
systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. In: Research Evidence in
Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute
of Education.
Goodley, D. (2005) Empowerment, self-advocacy and resilience, Journal of
Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 333-343.
Hammersley, M. (2008) Paradigm war revived? On the diagnosis of resistance to
randomized controlled trial and systematic review in education, International
Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 31(1), 3-10.
Harden, A., Thomas, J., Evans, J., Scanlon, M. & Sinclair, J. (2003) Supporting
pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) in mainstream primary
schools: a systematic review of recent research on strategy effectiveness (1999
to 2002). In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Heron, J. & Reason, P. (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm, Qualitative Inquiry,
3(3), 274-94.
Hill, M., Laybourn, A. & Borland, M. (1996) Engaging with primary-aged children
about their emotions and well-being: Methodological considerations. Children &
Society 10, 129-144.
Kane, J., Lloyd, G., McCluskey, G., Maguire, R., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E.
(2007) Generating an inclusive ethos? Exploring the impact of restorative
practices in Scottish schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-21.
Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (2004) Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for
inclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Lister-Sharp D., Chapman S., Stewart-Brown S.L. & Sowden, A. (2000) ‘Health
Promoting Schools and Health Promotion in Schools: Two Systematic Reviews’.
Health Technology Assessment, 3 (22).
Lloyd, G., McCluskey, G., Riddell, S., Stead, J., Weedon, E., & Kane, J. (2007)
Restorative Practices in Three Scottish Councils: Evaluation of Pilot Projects
2004-2006. Executive Summary. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
McLeod, J. & Wright, K. (2009) The talking cure in everyday life: Gender,
Generations and Friendship, Sociology, 43(1), 122-39.
Nind, M. & Weare, K. (28-30 Sept 2009) Evidence and outcomes of school based
programmes for promoting mental health in children and adolescents, ECER
Annual Conference, Vienna.
Nind, M. & Wearmouth, J. with Collins, J., Hall, K., Rix, J. & Sheehy, K. (2004) A
Systematic Review of Pedagogical Approaches that can effectively include children
with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms with a particular focus on
peer group interactive approaches. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Nind, M. & Wearmouth, J. (1-4 August 2005) Pedagogical Approaches that
effectively include children with SEN in mainstream classrooms: a systematic
literature review, International Special Education Congress, University of
Strathclyde.
Nind, M. & Wearmouth, J. (2006) Including children with special educational needs in
mainstream classrooms: implications for pedagogy from a systematic review,
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6(3), 116-24.
Pais, J.M. (2003) The multiple faces of the future in the labyrinth of life, Journal of
Youth Studies, 6(2), 115-26.
Panayiotopoulos, C. (2004) A follow-up of a home and school support project for
children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, 9(2), 85-98.
Pomeroy, E. (1999) The teacher-student relationship in secondary school: insights
from excluded students, British Journal of Sociology in Education, 20(4), 465-82.
Pritchard, C. (2001) A family-teacher-social work alliance to reduce truancy and
delinquency - The Dorset Healthy Alliance Project. Available from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ78-dha.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2008.
Osler, A. & Vincent, K. (2003) Girls and Exclusion: rethinking the agenda. London,
Routledge Falmer.
Riley, P. (2009) An adult attachment perspective on the student-teacher relationship
& classroom management difficulties< Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 62635.
Rix, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., Sheehy, K. & Wearmouth, J. (2006) A systematic review of
interactions in pedagogical approaches with reported outcomes for the academic
and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. Technical Report. In:
Research Evidence in Education Library. London: Eppi-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Rootman, I. Goodstadt, M., McQueen,D. Potvin, L., Springett, J. and Ziglio, E. (2001)
Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and Perspectives WHO/Euro
Copenhagen.
Sebba, J. (2007) Enhancing impact on policy–making through increasing user
engagement in research, in L. Saunders (ed.) Educational Research and PolicyMaking: Exploring the border country between research and policy. London:
Routledge.
Sheehy, K. & Rix, J. with Collins, J., Hall, K., Nind, M. & Wearmouth, J. (2009) A
systematic review of whole class, subject-based pedagogies with reported
outcomes for the academic and social inclusion of pupils with special educational
needs. Technical Report No.1701. In: Research Evidence in Education Library.
London: Eppi-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Stewart, D., Sun, J., Patterson, C., Lemerle, K. & Hardie, M. (2004) Promoting and
building resilience in primary school communities: evidence from a
comprehensive ‘health promoting school’ approach', International Journal of
Mental Health Promotion, 6 (3), 26-33.
Taliaferro, J.D., DeCuir-Gunby, J. & Allen-Eckard, K. (2009) ‘I can see parents being
reluctant’: perceptions of parental involvement using child and family teams in
schools, Child and Family Social Work, 14, 278-88.
te Riele, K. (2007) The relational dimension of ‘effective schooling’ for marginalised
young women. In McLeod, J., & Allard, A.C. (eds) Learning from the Margins:
Young Women Social Exclusion and Education. London: Routledge.
Thomas, G. (2010) Evidence began in 1998, Research Intelligence, 109, 14-15.
Veck, W. (2009) Listening to include, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
13(2), 141-55.
Walker, L. (2008) Learner engagement. A review of learner voice initiatives across
the UK’s education sectors. London: Futurelab
Weare, K. (2004) Developing the Emotionally Literate School. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Weare, K. & Gray, G. (2003) What works in developing children's emotional and
social competence and wellbeing?, Department for Education and Skills (RR456).
Wilcox A., with Hoyle, C. (2004) The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s
Restorative Justice Projects. Available from:
http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/restorativejusticefull.pdf
. Accessed 22 May 2009.
Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R.P., Wang, M.C. & Walberg, H. (2004) Building Academic
Success on Social and Emotional Learning. New York: Columbia Teachers
College.