Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Staged Intervention Using the Framework For Intervention Model:
Development and Impact in East Ayrshire

Ms. Maggie Fallon & Dr Tom Williams
Woodstock Centre, Woodstock Street
Kilmarnock KA1 2BE
Maggie.fallon@east-ayrshire.gov.uk
Tom.Williams@east-ayrshire.gov.uk

Abstract

This paper summarises the views of Teachers and Head Teachers involved with Staged Intervention (Framework for Intervention), a behaviour initiative introduced to East Ayrshire in 2001. The initiative has seen the introduction of Behaviour Coordinators, who act as a reference and source to form strategies and tackle behavioural disruption in the classroom. The process is opt-in and the content of interventions is confidential. The paper outlines the philosophy and principles of the Framework for Intervention process as developed by Birmingham Education Authority. It describes Framework for Intervention’s impact and effectiveness on East Ayrshire’s schools with reference to organisational psychology and its increasing relevance to education. The paper concludes with recommendations for changes and considerations an Education Authority in Scotland might reasonably take when introducing such an initiative.

In light of the pilot project developed by East Ayrshire Council The Scottish Executive have supported the development of Staged Intervention (FFI) nationally across Scotland.

Keywords: Behaviour Issues; Disruptive Behaviour, Ecosystemic Approaches; Organisational Change School Staff Culture.

Background

The advent of Inclusion in Scottish Education has demanded organisational changes for schools and teachers. There are measures in place that work closely with children whose involvement in mainstream education becomes untenable but increasingly these resources have become overstretched. Staged Intervention (FFI) is designed to provide a framework which not only addresses behaviour issues, but focuses upon disruptive behaviours at the earliest stage. In this way many more instances of disruptive behaviour may be diffused before further out of class intervention is required. Subsequently, behaviour is tackled more efficiently and effectively and the development of an inclusive education system in the authority is strengthened.

Staged Intervention (FFI) combines a management function, with an emphasis on building cooperative relationships between school staff and a reflective function whereby staff have a means of formally scrutinising and reviewing their professional environment in a supportive and non threatening manner.  

Staged Intervention (FFI) is typical of Ecosystemic approaches in tackling disruptive behaviour; it takes a view based upon the notion that the root and cause of problematic behaviour should not be located within pupils but from the interactions between pupils, teachers and the community. A cohesive school will place emphasis on control whereas inclusive or incorporative schools emphasise cooperation and supporting the child or the young person in the school, community or at home.

The Process

The framework consists of three levels of intervention; called simply Level 1, 2 and 3. The significant elements of the approach as discussed in Williams and Daniels (2000) are as follows:  

• Level One - starts at the point of first concern by classroom teacher.
• Plans at Level One are based on factors in the behavioural environment rather than on individuals. On the basis of the discussion the teacher completes The Behaviour Environment Checklist (BEC) and may request a Classroom Observation.
• Those with the initial concern retain control and responsibility at Level One.
• Level Two-  Continues the environmental approach in conjunction with Individual Behaviour Plans (BEPs).
• A full Level 1 Intervention has taken place, but specific behaviours remain a cause for concern. The most recent BEP is reviewed by the teacher and the Behaviour Coordinator and an Individual Behaviour Plan (IBP) is completed in consultation with teacher, pupil and parent.
• At this level the school’s senior management team would be fully informed of the details of interventions.
• Level Three   - A full Level 1 and Level2   Intervention has taken place, but there are still major causes of concern. The Behaviour Coordinator takes full responsibility to move the matter forward and the IEP and BEP is taken to an internal School Assessment Team (SAT) meeting.
• Links to East Ayrshire’s multi disciplinary forums which address pupils’ behavioural issues in consultation with Social Workers, Educational Psychologists etc. In East Ayrshire these are known as School Assessment Team Meetings (SATs), Learning Partnership Assessment Team Meetings (PATs) and Community Assessment Team Meetings (CATs).

Naturally, the parameters of the levels are somewhat blurred and there is scope for interpretation of where one level ends and another begins. In this respect, a great deal depends on the perceived severity of behavioural problems experienced by individual staff. All three levels work on a continuum; each level being requisite of the level before. However, if intervention at level one is successful and the behaviour problem is resolved then there is no need for intervention to continue. The philosophy of Staged Intervention (FFI) suggests that by addressing behavioural disruption at the earliest stage it will prevent the initial behaviour from escalating.

It is important that this principle is followed rigidly. The assumption that behaviours start and develop uniformly may seem naïve but the three staged approach of Staged Intervention (FFI) stipulates that no matter how serious the disruption intervention should always and without exception begin at Level 1. Confusion may arise though with any assumptions suggesting that Staged Intervention (FFI) is a behaviour initiative to be used at the expense and as replacement of all previously existing behaviour policy. This is not the case. Staged Intervention (FFI) is designed to work along side other initiatives and if used correctly it should offer a more comprehensive appraisal of disruption. However, whilst this principle should be followed, interventions can still be dynamic, flexible and responsive. Every behavioural difficulty is unique therefore a uniform and unimaginative application of Staged Intervention to problems could prove ineffective.  

The philosophy of Staged Intervention (FFI) was devised by The New Outlooks Project (Williams, Bonothan, Daniels, Holland, Lake & Snowden 1997) and has since provided the backbone to East Ayrshire’s adoption of the initiative.

The report of the Discipline Task Group, Better Behaviour - Better Learning (2001) summarised the recurring themes in ensuring a positive climate in which teachers teach and where young people learn. These aims include:

• Effective vision and leadership at all levels within education
• The importance of high quality learning and teaching
• Continuing professional development
• Participative decision making
• Consistency in the application and implementation of agreed policies
• The development of holistic support through multi-disciplinary approaches
• The importance of teachers having high expectations of children and young people
• Ensuring the staff who have the responsibility for the care and welfare of children and young people are given the time and the resources to do this effectively

• As well as the Better Behaviour Better Learning themes, outlined above, there are five National Priorities for Education in Scotland aimed at facilitating the best possible education for children. It was important too that the Staged Intervention (FFI) initiative cohere with these priorities:

• Priority One: Achievement and Attainment
• Priority Two: Framework for Learning
• Priority Three: Inclusion and Equality
• Priority Four: Values and Citizenship
• Priority Five: Learning for Life

In order to address these National Priorities, East Ayrshire have targeted disruptive behaviour in classrooms. Staged Intervention (FFI) philosophy is consistent with this local focus on classroom behaviour and the five national priorities above and with the findings of Munn et al. (1997).

• Rationale for using Semi-Structured Interviews
  
• A range of assessment tools was considered and it was decided that in the light of the work of Cross (1991) and McKeever (1996) the researcher would not simply use a standard questionnaire despite its advantages for ease of scoring and statistical analysis, but rather combine the standard questionnaire format with the personal semi-structured interview as recommended by Hodgson et al. (2001). In this way it was felt that a useful balance of qualitative and quantitative data would be gathered.
  
• The semi-structured interview offers the benefits of standardised questioning along with opportunities for respondents to expand or deviate from the prescribed format of questions. Whilst this made scoring the responses to these questions difficult it was felt that there were positive benefits which outweighed the disadvantages.  

Participants

East Ayrshire schools are divided into Learning Partnerships according to geographical location and one Partnership based on denomination. There are nine Learning Partnerships which consist of between 3-7 primary schools and one secondary school.  

46 Primary Schools, 36 Behaviour Coordinators, 37 Head Teachers and 10 Class teachers took part in the research. 50 Staged Intervention referrals were made in primary schools during the research period.

Of the 9 Secondary Schools in East Ayrshire, 7 Head Teachers, 13 Behaviour Coordinators and 3 Class Teachers took part in the research. There have been 34 Staged Intervention (FFI) referrals in secondary schools during the research period.

Special Schools had studied the Staged Intervention (FFI) materials but during the research period felt that use of the full referral system was not really applicable to the context. As a matter of course special educational schools evaluate the educational and behavioural needs of all their pupils and develop strategies that are consistent within both the school and home environment.   These are reviewed on a regular basis and recorded on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and Individual Behaviour Plans (IBPs) which is consistent with Staged Intervention (FFI).   

The questions asked and discussed during the structured interviews made respondents question parts of the Staged Intervention (FFI) philosophy and think about it in a structured way. The researcher feels the process of talking about their role was useful for them and also for the over all progress of Staged Intervention (FFI) in East Ayrshire.

Method : Context of the Current Research

• East Ayrshire Council’s research was lead by the Research Assistant with supervision and guidance from the Authority’s Principal Psychologist, and the Manager of Youth Strategy.
• The research aims were:

• To assess the efficacy of Staged Intervention (FFI) as a resource for Behaviour Discipline in Primary and Secondary Schools in the Authority
• To develop proposals for improved service delivery in the light of research feedback and cognisance of discussions with teachers involved in the initiative.
• To undertake wide ranging surveys of schools using the initiative in order to establish best practice in:

• setting up the initiative in schools at Management Level and
• the practical use and application of the initiative.   

• To inform The Scottish Executive of   East Ayrshire’s experiences of Staged Intervention (FFI)

Head Teachers, Class teachers, and Behaviour Coordinators were invited to take part in the research. Three questionnaires were designed each sharing common traits but with crucial differences in focus in order to grasp a complete overview of Staged Intervention (FFI) from all perspectives. Semi structured interviews were carried out over the course of September and October 2003.

Results

Looking specifically at the Staged Intervention (FFI) process:

• 97.6% of Behaviour Coordinators said that The Environment Checklist was either useful or very useful
• 92.1% of Behaviour Coordinators said Staged Intervention Classroom Observation was either useful or very useful
• 100% of Behaviour Coordinators said that Staged Intervention Discussions with Class Teachers are useful or very useful

The extent to which Staged Intervention (FFI) can impact upon a school, and indeed a learning partnership’s ethos is considerable:

“As part of our Learning Partnership we have formulated a tracking system from Primary through to Secondary which has been influenced greatly by Staged Intervention (FFI). As a school we have a whole behaviour policy based on the three levels which have formed the structure of how we look at behaviour.   We have both reactive and pro active strategies aside from Staged Intervention and we have extended the role of the Behaviour Coordinator to encompass a guidance role too.” (Primary School Head Teacher)

There are implications on an administrative and professional level;

• paperwork involved both within school and across the learning partnership
• time and cover requirements for intervention

• Formal and official means for constructive dialogue and intervention for disruptive behaviour advocated on an ‘opt in’ basis.

Whilst the benefits of having a trained member of staff with the potential to reduce the Head Teacher and members of their senior management team’s workload, class teachers may not share a sense of benefit. Informal discussions indicate that some Behaviour Coordinators perceive teacher attitudes towards Staged Intervention (FFI) coming from a non-promoted member of staff as inappropriate, particularly in the case of teachers who have been in the profession for some time. Two Head Teachers who participated in the research felt that responsibility for behavioural disruption shifting to non-promoted staff undermined their position.

One Head Teacher expressed fear at the possibility of parents making reference to intervention that they knew nothing about. However, at Level 1, intervention is focused on the environment and not individual pupils and therefore there is no need to inform parents. Level Two rubric asserts that Head Teachers would be made aware of any behaviour that warranted parental intervention. These issues were apparent in a very small number of schools and reflect a need for clarification of exactly how Staged Intervention (FFI) procedure should operate in the particular establishments.      

“It was perfectly straightforward to implement Staged Intervention and because the school volunteered to be part of the pilot, attitudes have been fairly positive. It has been brought in at SAT level and intervention has been encouraged to occur as early as possible. The paperwork is a useful tool to help teachers talk constructively at meetings with parents.” (Primary Head Teacher)

This example represents the benefits that schools enjoyed as a result of opting for Staged Intervention (FFI) as part of the pilot project. The sense of ownership fostered by the mutual agreement between Schools and the Authority to use Staged Intervention (FFI) removes any sense of burdening a School with an initiative. A sense of choice distributes perceptions of responsibility for the uptake of an initiative more evenly between the School and the Authority.

 Two key factors essential to Staged Intervention (FFI) success

• A willingness and enthusiasm on the part of the Head Teacher for Staged Intervention (FFI) based on a full understanding that it can effect positive change.
• The selection thereafter of a member of staff most suited to the position of Behaviour Coordinator who is

• perceived positively and recognised by the rest of the staff as the most appropriate member of staff to be given the role.
• willing and enthusiastic

There are difficulties in separating the perceived influence of Staged Intervention (FFI) over existing behaviour strategies; the more distinct Staged Intervention (FFI) was seen to be, the more resistance there was to it. Positive responses to the initiative emerged when it was recognised as a complementary behaviour strategy designed to reinforce and strengthen existing policy rather than as a replacement of it.  

In order to successfully implement Staged Intervention (FFI) across East Ayrshire’s schools it is necessary to highlight the differences between Primary and Secondary School infrastructures; in Secondary Schools Staged Intervention (FFI) is affected by a number of factors that make it distinct from its practice at Primary level:

• In secondary schools, pupils move from class to class and one teacher’s experience of a class can be markedly different from another’s.

• There is an incompatibility between Behaviour Coordinators’ and Class Teachers’ timetables. Often there is not an appropriate subject specific teacher to cover the behaviour coordinator’s class.

• The cost of one supply teacher to cover a Behaviour Coordinator’s class while they follow up a referral technically costs as much as a whole day’s cover. Ideally six referrals could be followed up on a given day but the nature of Staged Intervention (FFI) referrals is that they are intermittent and sporadic. In order to provide direct and sustainable support to Behaviour Coordinators, teachers seeking intervention and to the initiative generally, the issue of cover needs to be addressed.
• Head Teachers best intentions mean that in order not to waste the Staged Intervention (FFI) budget they encourage staff within in the school to cover classes on a ‘please take’ basis.   Whilst this preserves the budget it also places more strain on the teaching staff especially if intervention for a problem class is time consuming and requires several weeks of intervention.

• In schools where Staged Intervention (FFI) is in its formative stage, this ‘please take’ scenario does not enhance the initiatives reputation, particularly when it is known that there is a separate budget available for cover.  

• Incompatibility of teaching timetables   means accessing the Behaviour Coordinator is sometimes difficult. Firstly, this may be resolved by offering a Behaviour Coordinator position to each subject department. In this way more time would be spent between Behaviour Coordinators and those in the department seeking intervention informally. Secondly, after school surgeries allow easier access to the Behaviour Coordinator.   Consequently, the time needed for class cover arrangements would be reduced and in turn pupil curriculum targets would not be placed in jeopardy.    

What Staged Intervention (FFI) has brought to East Ayrshire’s Schools

Barriers to Staged Intervention (FFI)   as perceived by all respondents

The graph on page 14 suggests that initially Staged Intervention (FFI) has not reduced ‘more serious behaviour problems’ at secondary level in comparison with a 10.81% improvement at primary level. This result is linked to the infrastructure of secondary schools which have teams of promoted staff (Guidance/ Pupil Support) who deal directly with high tariff behaviours. This system is rarely incorporated within a primary school structure; therefore it is easier to quantify the positive effect of Staged Intervention (FFI) in a primary school.

Respondents at primary level noted a 21.62% positive improvement in their learning environment in contrast to secondary schools who did not attribute improvement in their learning environment exclusively to Staged Intervention (FFI). In this way, Staged Intervention’s (FFI) at secondary level is simply a reinforcement of existing mechanisms.

The barriers to Staged Intervention (FFI), illustrated on page 15, arose in discussions across the Authority at both Primary and Secondary level.  

As Staged Intervention (FFI) claims to be confidential and East Ayrshire’s teaching staff have been informed that it is, there is a feeling that failure to keep details of intervention confidential maybe harmful for the confidence of staff and in turn for Staged Intervention (FFI) uptake. The size of primary schools and particularly in open plan primary schools colleagues will notice the intervention of the Behaviour Coordinator and this indirectly jeopardises teacher confidentiality.

However, whilst the causes for intervention should be kept confidential, the strategies that are used to tackle these behaviours could usefully be shared with the whole staff. In Secondary Schools where a number of different teachers may experience the same problems with one child across the curriculum such strategy sharing stands to reason.

To raise the profile of Staged Intervention (FFI) in schools the senior management team must be actively supportive to the Behaviour Coordinators during the whole school induction and its long term implementation. This may be further consolidated by formally writing Staged Intervention (FFI) in to schools’ Behaviour Policies and in particular the Improvement Plan for the school.  

Discussion

Discussion of the curriculum centres our attention upon the reasons why Authorities feel the need to tackle disruptive behaviour in the first place. If classroom behaviour dictates the speed and direction that the curriculum takes then it is vital that this is tackled early on. Behavioural disruption interrupts the progress required to equip children with the necessary skills that have been deemed beneficial for them to function capably in society socially, professionally and economically.   

However, a study in Australia (Slade & Trent, 2000) strongly suggests that this disruption may well have as much to do with the teachers as pupils or their environment:

“…when the boys talk about both the work and teachers being boring, irrelevant and repetitive they do this as though these were inseparable aspects of one process that they simply call school”

Staged Intervention (FFI) is slow to question teachers’ approaches to pedagogy or to address the issue that some teachers could improve and become more effective. It is true to say that if this were a defining and conspicuous part of Staged Intervention (FFI) then resistance to it in schools would likely be insurmountable. Staged Intervention (FFI), as discussed already, represents a significant step for teachers as their teaching environment is being exposed, albeit on an optional basis, in a way that it has not been before. As the current educational research points to the future of schools as being self sufficient learning organisations (Senge, 2000) it would appear consistent that such ‘in house’ initiatives like Staged Intervention (FFI) should address these issues internally and explicitly.                                                                                                    

Staged Intervention (FFI) defines itself as a ‘no blame’ approach to tackling behaviour and this can be seen as a positive step away from blaming ‘within child’ problems. However, the pendulum must swing fully the other way and acknowledge that while children play an integral part in behavioural disruption and that the adaptation of the classroom and school environment have a part to play too, teachers also need to reflect upon their own teaching practices. Staged Intervention (FFI) shies away from making this explicit and is generally presented to teachers as an initiative that hinges on the learning environment. However, the scrutiny of teacher performance is buried in Staged Intervention (FFI) philosophy and after implementation and uptake has become sustainable it should be subtly but increasingly focused upon.

In the meantime, Staged Intervention (FFI) in East Ayrshire is felt to be a worthwhile resource but it is

obvious that it is still in its infancy. As pointed out in the Birmingham Research:

“School improvement through FFI is a long term process….implementation to
institutionalisation… is likely to take many years in larger schools.”

(iii Executive Summary. Cole, Visser, Daniels, 2000)

Consequently, its impact upon perceptions of improved school ethos and reductions in stress levels among teachers is at the moment largely neutral. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that morale is higher in schools where the initiative has been accepted as it offers more options and strategies to deal with behaviour problems. When the paperwork has been completed it has offered fruitful means for talking effectively and consistently about behaviour both with colleagues in schools, discussions held with parents and outside agencies.

Whilst there are 10 full time days available to each Behaviour Coordinator to carry out intervention, at this formative point in Staged Intervention (FFI) implementation much of this is taken up by training. Of the time that remains, class teachers have intimated that consultation time can only be carried out during break times, lunch times or after school.

In secondary schools the incompatibility of teachers’ timetables means that finding time to hold initial talks about arranging intervention are extremely difficult. Logistical problems like this cannot have positive implications for a new initiative; they simply do not encourage staff to opt in. However, the use of supported study rates can enable teachers, particularly at Secondary Level where timetable incompatibility is most acute, an hour a week set aside after school. This enables teachers to come and discuss problems out of the context of school bells and classroom duties. In the initial instance, enabling a sense of movement out of the classroom environment to gain some perspective on difficulties within it can make interventions more effective in the longer term.  

Potentially the Behaviour Coordinator role can generate a lot of responsibility and is time conssuming. It seems reasonable that the role should contribute to continuing professional development. This will benefit and motivate the Behaviour Coordinators who have undergone training and it will strengthen the status of Staged Intervention (FFI) in the minds of Class Teachers as an effective measure for dealing with behavioural disruption. By empowering the Behaviour Coordinators with greater responsibility and control for Staged Intervention (FFI) and offering them tangible incentives for carrying out these extra responsibilities, a legitimate incentive for class teachers to consult with them will also be established.

The suspicion that Staged Intervention (FFI) is an elaborate form of professional surveillance is understandable in the light of recent talk of performance related pay, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the Post McCrone period of transition and notions discussed in recent education literature concerning the deprofessionalisation of teachers. (Robinson 2000). Staged Intervention’s (FFI) involvement with teacher performance is not punitive but part of a teacher’s professional development and will benefit the profession as a whole.       

The evidence suggests that the appointment of a Behaviour Coordinator who is a non promoted member of the teaching staff is a good start. The most successful Behaviour Coordinators are those who are felt to have a particular insight into behavioural difficulties. It should be highlighted that the process involves a facilitation of a meeting between two professionals rather than a didactic monologue from Behaviour Coordinator to Class Teacher. It seems it is not always enough that Behaviour Coordinators have undergone training; there is still a crucial need for the Behaviour Coordinator to be perceived as a member of staff with a natural insight into behaviour problems.

Apparent reluctance among class teachers to opt for Staged Intervention (FFI) has prompted some Head Teachers to suggest that this is not necessarily a reflection of attitudes towards Staged Intervention (FFI) but rather a more general indicator of staff attitudes to supervision and change. Indeed the research supports such a view.   By acknowledging that implementing a framework around behaviour strategies is a complex and long term task, greater care can be taken in offering Staged Intervention (FFI) a ‘little at a time.’ Experienced teachers who have been in the profession for a considerable time or in schools that have not had an injection of new staff for some years find it difficult to adapt. Whilst quick to refer to their close knit and organised structure, they are the most resistant to change and new initiatives introduced tend to be perceived as threatening to the fabric and ethos of the school.  

Staged Intervention (FFI) also incorporates useful strategies for coping with behavioural disruption that initial teacher training lacks. The evidence also indicates that Probationers and teachers who are relatively new to the profession are also much more likely to seek Staged Intervention (FFI) help. Presumably, this is because they do not associate such intervention as compromising their teaching credentials. Less experienced teachers are perceived to have less to lose professionally by seeking Staged Intervention (FFI) help whilst more experienced teachers are more inclined to view formal discussions of their classroom environment in terms of formal criticism of their teaching technique.

Behaviour Coordinators have expressed feelings of isolation. The creation of the post of Staged Intervention (FFI) Development Officer, which began in November 2004, was designed to meet this need. Again such measures will contribute to raising the profile of the initiative but will also help foster a sense of ownership and responsibility among school staff to make Staged Intervention (FFI) a successful and useful part of behaviour policy. As the target audience for the initiative, class teachers’ awareness of Staged Intervention (FFI) is crucial and the remit of such a support resource could usefully offer structured within school workshops about Staged Intervention (FFI) for class teachers.  

 East Ayrshire has introduced the Pupil Checklist, also inspired by the Birmingham Framework for Intervention materials. By involving children in the process of assessing the environment, a more rounded picture of the environment’s role in facilitating and influencing disruption will be developed. In this way the responsibility for change will be placed in a consistent framework that both teachers and pupils are aware of, making strategies complimentary and clear.

Head Teachers and Senior Management are key to providing a platform for Staged Intervention (FFI). It is essential that they take as full a sense of responsibility for promoting and encouraging its use in school as possible. If the hearts and minds of head teachers are not convinced of Staged Intervention’s (FFI’s) appropriateness to education, it is difficult to see it benefiting staff. Where Staged Intervention (FFI) has contributed positively in schools, and where it is growing are in schools with a persistent Head Teacher who sees an intrinsic benefit in Staged Intervention and a Behaviour Coordinator with the appropriate standing among staff to represent a realistic, approachable and potent resource on behaviour issues.

Bibliography

Carr, W. (Ed.) (1989). “Quality in Teaching: Arguments for a Reflective Profession” Falmer Press

Cole, T, Visser, J, Daniels, H (2000) “The Framework for Intervention: Identifying and Promoting

Effective Practice (Second Evaluation Report)” City of Birmingham LEA

Daniels, A & Williams, H. (2000). “Reducing the Need for Exclusions and Statements for     

Behaviour: The Framework for Intervention Part 1.” Educational Psychology in Practice, 15 (4), 220-227

Greenwood, M.S. & Gaunt, H.J. (1994) “Total Quality Management for Schools” Cassell

McKeever, P. (1996). “Consumer Opinion of the Quality of Educational Psychology Services: A Pilot Survey” Educational Psychology in Practice vol.12 no.1. 45-49.

Munn, P, Lloyd, G, Cullen, MA (2000 ) “Alternatives to Exclusion from School” Paul Chapman Publishing: Sage Publications

Norwich, B. (1998). “Research Methods in Educational Psychology: traditional and new paradigm.” Educational and Child Psychology, (1998), Vol.15 (3).

Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD) (1990a). The Teacher Today. Paris:OECD.

Robertson, S.L. (2000) “A Class Act- Changing Teachers’ Work, the State, and Globalisation.” Falmer Press

Scottish Executive (April 2002) “National Priorities in Education Newsletter”

Scottish Executive (2001). “Better Behaviour- Better Learning”: Summary Report of the Discipline Task Group. Edinburgh: Stationary Office.

Senge, P. (2001). “Schools That Learn” Nicholas Brealey Publishing London

Siegel, S. & Castellan, N.J. (1988). Non parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 2 nd Edition New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact