Causes of Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

Causes of Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties catch the name of an individuals well-disposed, ablaze and behavioral difficulties is essential before you privy decl atomic number 18 a palmy intervention. Critically assess this assertion in the light of an bodily function you gather in underinterpreted as spot of this module.IntroductionDelinquents, moral imbeciles and maladjusted children atomic piece 18 just some of the pocks historically attri howevered to individuals presenting the difficulties later li direct as worked up and behavioral difficulties (Ministry of Education 1995).In this strive the grandness of visualiseing the sets of an individuals social, horny and demeanoural difficulties (SEBD) is explored in relation to whether this understanding is critical for the implementation of fortunate interventions. This essay primarily considers individuals at bottom the UK educational system which covers children/young people betwixt the ages of 4 and 16. In the memorize and education of individuals with SEBD on that take seems to be a deficiency of uniformity in how the label is exemplifyed and app deceitd the descriptors and definitions of SEBD leave alone therefore be considered along with current twists in the number of inform age individuals diagnosed as SEBD in order to give context to this theatre of backchat. A nonher depict argona of disparity is the speculative persuasion select when assessing and treating an individual with SEBD. The theoretical perspectives each present a different onset to aetiology and interventions, these provide be considered in relation to importance of drift in the basis of each and how they lead to interventions. The key financial statement im ingredient then(prenominal) cogitate on the importance of understanding pee and test evidence from published literature, query and policies to curb this followed by discussion of wherefore understanding causal agent wh itethorn non be essential in order to implement successful interventions. The general target is to ascertain whether interventions are mainly ground on consideration of the aetiology of behaviour and whether there is evidence to indicate their success. Indeed Harden (2003) cogitate that there was light evidence for dodge in effect(p)ness in behavioral difficulties.The subject of instance and interventions was discussed with fellow pros in a web found discussion (Vygotsky, muleteer and Montessori discussion assort October 2010 November 2010) and reference testament be made to the 2 fictional case studies which formed the basis of these virtual discussions. In the inaugural a boy, Ronnie, no instruction was disposed on his cathode-ray oscilloscope so the focus was on the detect disruptive behaviour in shoal and the teacher believing he has SEBD. In the foster an 11 course of instruction old girl, Vicki, far more(prenominal) detail was given including her new- fashioned transportation system to secondary enlighten above average reading scientific disciplines, parents separated and with unexampled partners, the possibility of epilepsy, refusal to do homework and getting into trouble at instruct. These discussions make a range of views on aetiology, the need for information possibly relating to develop and the nature of assessment and interventions. In general the contributing professionals showed a lust to hurl more information round each child and to interpret the impact of background elements on the difficulties existence observed although there was petty acknowledgement of why this information was needed (Farrugia, 2010).What is understood by social, delirious and behaviour difficulties (SEBD)?One of the overriding issues in the field of SEBD is the ambiguity in understanding and identification of individuals who may stomach social, emotional and behavioural difficulties with those who sop up less severe discipline c apers (Evan, Harden, Thomas 2004). This introduces the first difficulty as the decision to classify an individual as having SEBD is with the person who identifies some font of behaviour as problematic and is reliant on that persons constructs. Government publications pee provided several descriptions of which two are considered in this essay. In Circular 9/94 (DfE 1994) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulty (EBD) is described as world betweenbehaviour which challenges the teacher but is within normal, albeit unacceptable, bounds and that which is indicative of serious mental illness. The distinction between normal but unhappy behaviour, emotional and behavioural difficulties arising from mental illness is big be pillow slip each inevitably to be treated differently. (p.4)The definition focuses on the behavioural aspect preferably than emotional and indicates it is a problem for the teachers thereby restricting the difficulties to educational settings. interpretation of what may be considered unacceptable is therefore likely to result in inconsistent identification of the types of children teachers identify as having EBD (Soles, Bloom, Heath, Karagiannakis 2008). In The Special educational Needs (SEN) commandment of use (2001), the definition was amended to incorporate social difficulties and so expanded to social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD), the code defines those with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) asChildren and young people who demonstrate features of emotional and behavioural difficulties, who are withdrawn or isolated, disruptive and disturbing, hyperactive and lack concentration those with unvaned social skills and those presenting contend behaviours arising from other complex spare inescapably ( split up 760)This description describes a range of characteristics associated with this disorder and recognises that much(prenominal) behaviours can evolve from other special educational needs. This prese nts a broader spectrum of behaviours linked with emotional and social difficulties and remains open to the personal interpretation of those interacting with such children. The lack of clarity of the descriptors could be linked to the increasing number of children diagnosed as having SEBD creation recorded in English schools. In 2008 149,040 children had a need of EBD on school action plus or statemented at primary, secondary and special state funded schools, this was an increase of 6.98% year on year (DCSF 2008), EBD represented the second highest need after moderate tuition difficulties. This could be due to an certain increase in the number of children experiencing difficulties or to the wider interpretation of the definition principal to more children being recorded with this difficulty who might otherwise down remained at a school action stage. Whichever the reason, it is apparent that increasing number of children within the UK education system are being identified as havi ng a need of SEBD and this in turn has led to increasing focus on interventions in point for behavioural difficulties as seen in the recent white paper (DfE 2010). The descriptions given in Circular 9/94 (DfE 1994) and the SEN Code of Practice (2001) make no direct reference to aetiology or the necessity to acknowledge this although The SEN Code of Practise (2001) recognises that SEBD may require co-morbidity with other biological or checkup conditions (7.52, 7.53, 7.58) and links with mental health (10.27) in time focusing for specific assessment and interventions is non detailed. This could be seen as indicative of the lack of unity on the understanding of provokes and interventions for those with SEBD.Which theoretical perspective of lay down of SEBD?In 1829 a 20 year poet wrote these linesFrom childhoods hour I have not beenAs others were-I have not seenAs others saw-I could not bring forthMy passions from a common spring-From the same source I have not takenMy sorrow- I could not awakenMy heart to joy at the same tone-And all I lovd-I lovd alone(from Alone by Edgar totallyen Poe 1829)The poet was Edgar Allen Poe. Poe was taken into foster care at the age of 3 adjacent the conclusion of his parents and at the age of 6 his foster family moved to London. Poe was said to be talented donnishally yet a difficult character (Poe Museum n.d.) the poetry Alone suggests a troubled child who considers himself to be different. In todays educational climate he may well have been identified as a child with SEBD. Would an understanding of his early life have been of the essence(p) in development of successful interventions? From a behavioural perspective it could be suggested that only his noticeable difficult behaviour was of importance and indeed treatable. The causes could not be speculated upon as they could not be scientifically measured. Bowlby, from a psychodynamic get on might have disagreed Poes early childhood experiences, nigh notably the remnant of his parents and being taken into foster care, may have suppressed his cozy desires and drives leading to internal conflicts. Bowlby might have been interested in the repression of Poes feelings following the death of his parents (Bowlby 1988). An ecosystemic perspective may have considered the effects of the changes of the family systems and the move to a different society in England as impacting on his interactions with the systems around him.In a same vein, the web ground discussions of Ronnie and Vicki (Vygotsky, mule skinner and Montessori discussion group October 2010 November 2010) led to similar questions. In the case of Vicki, fellow professionals mostly concurred on the credence of an ecosystemic perspective for assessment ground on the information given concerning the breakdown of the systems in her life some believed that a psychodynamic tone-beginning to reach her unconscious processes and a biological perspective to examine the assertable epilepsy sh ould overly be considered. However, the intervention strategies proposed were ground on a humanistic get down rather than linked to the diagnostic perspectives. As noted early for the Ronnie discussion there appears little acknowledgement of why the information was needed and how information may link to interventions. In the case of Ronnie, discussions indicated that more information on areas such as his family background, his eruditeness difficulties, incidences of observed behaviour at school and the relationships within his family would be valuable in order to make a more informed recommendation for intervention strategies. This desire for more information showed an amalgamation of perspectives including social learning, psychodynamic and behavioural. Most interesting is that fellow professionals adopted a behavioural start to interventions in the absence of further information about Ronnie. It could be that this was within the realms of their experience of available strate gies in education.The question of which theoretical understanding of cause is the correct one cannot be fully answered. Professionals in the field of educational research tend to support a particular perspective there are differences of opinion between psychological, medical and sociological perspectives, this is further compounded by newer perspectives such as eco-systemic and humanist which have evolved from earlier theories. As Visser (2000) notes most do acknowledge that it is a categorization of perspectives which can provide insights into understanding and explaining that behaviour. (p.33). The trend for which cause can be seen in the changing descriptors given for SEBD as noted previously (DfE 1994 SEN Code of Practice 2001) and also in go aboutes to behavioural difficulties adopted by schools. The trend towards a behavioural psychology approach of operant conditioning and behaviour modification as a strategy for treating children with SEBD has been seen since 1975 (Cooper 1999). Children are seen as qualification a choice not to behave and through and through use of behavioural approaches such as consequence and reward they can be taught to indigence to behave so a new behaviour is learnt (Greene 2008). From this perspective, aetiology is not a considered factor and emphasis is on implementing a system of rewards and consequences which aim to reduce unacceptable behaviour and encourage a re-learning of acceptable behaviour.The screen approach of many behavioural policies, in part dictated to schools through government directives, suggest that policy makers and educationalists do not consider there is a need to understand causes of SEBD. Behaviour is assumed to be within the control of the child and the school is assumed to be able to enamour and change the behaviour. Recent years have seen a change in approach with prominence given to systemic approaches taking into account the interaction of systems and environments surrounding the child as key factors impacting on their social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (Evans, Harden and Thomas 2004). From this perspective there is a need to understand cause in terms of the environments of the individual. This was evident in the web based discussion on Vicki (Vygotsky, mule skinner and Montessori November 2010) where contributors were mostly united in adoption of an ecosystemic approach and attributed the cause of the difficulties to disruption in Vickis home and school life.Understanding the cause of the SEBD is essential before making a successful intervention.In the previous section a number of theoretical approaches to identifying cause were examined and it is think that there are difficulties in finding consensus on one approach and one understanding of cause. Despite the difference of opinions of the likely origins of the SEBD, there is widespread support of the need for understanding the cause. Visser (2005) is opposed to a prescriptive approach to dealing with beh avioural difficulties and frankincense supports the case for recognising that each child with SEBD may have a different cause of SEBD although he previously hold that there are still gaps in understanding of both causes and of approaches utilise in children with EBD (Visser 2002). Others in this field also advocate the turn a profits to teachers having understanding of pupils with SEBD Cole, Visser and Daniels (1999) in a paper examining effective EBD practices in mainstream schools promote the need for school staff to understand the complex causing and the varied aetiology of EBD in order to be able to match apposite interventions.Another stylus of considering cause is to examine underlying difficulties which may be causing SEBD, not from a theoretical perspective but from a possible medical or other difficulty so the behaviour is not instanter linked to a psychological or systemic root but rather from some other difficulty which leads to the behaviour emerging as a symptom. torment (2004) believes that a relationship exists between communication difficulties and emotional and behavioural difficulties. Communication difficulties may arise from biological causes such as Pervasive Development Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or from environmental factors such as child abuse and neglect, or from learning difficulties. Cross maintains that whatever the origin, it is the communication difficulty which must be addressed as a priority as weak communication skills can have a negative impact on a childs ability to interact and socialise, this can aggravate emotional and behavioural difficulties. In this sense the observed behavioural difficulties could be masking underlying communication difficulties which, if not treated, will not improve the behaviour. In the web discussion on Ronnie (Vygotsky, muleteer and Montessori discussion group October 2010) fellow professionals concurred that a link was likely between his possible learning difficulti es and his behavioural difficulties and that this should form a key part of any interventions.In his book, Lost At School, Greene (2008) maintains that teachers cannot know what to do with challenging behaviour unless the reasons for it are understood, referring to these reasons as lagging skills those skills which are lacking no matter of diagnosis. Staff need to identify and understand the skill lacking as this is pivotal to implementing a successful intervention. Greene (2008) lists many lagging skills, including difficulties with maintaining focus, considering likely effects, managing emotional responses, which professionals may attribute to a range of disorders such as learning difficulties, autistic spectrum disorder, cognitive difficulties, or anxiety. It is identification of the specific lagging skills which are of more importance than the actual diagnosis as the diagnostic label does not in itself indicate which skills are lacking. Emphasis should therefore be on identify ing the specific aspects which are lacking the lack of a skill on base an environment which demands these skills is the depart to there being a problem (Greene 2008). This is in line with an ecological perspective as the behaviour is an outcome of the lagging skill conflicting with the environment.Support for the importance of understanding aetiology is also found in educational guidance the School clear up and Pupil Behaviour Policies (DCSF 2010) advises that it is essential to ensure correct assessment of possible reasons for children not behaving detachly and acknowledges that behavioural difficulties may be caused by learning difficulties, environmental factors or other cognitive, social or emotional difficulties (paras 3.9.29 -3.9.33) yet a subsequent subheading is Pupils who can behave but guide not to (p.58). This takes the school back to the descriptors of SEBD and places interpretation back in a subjective framework where the school has to distinguish between the form er and the latter(prenominal). In much the same way as seen in the SEN Code of Practice (2001) there is a lack of clarity in how cause should be identified and how this knowledge should guide interventions.A recent report empower Not Present and Not Correct (Evans, 2010) examined the efficacy of unconquerable term exclusions in curing behavioural problems. The report concluded this was not an effective strategy based on the number of fixed term exclusions having change magnitude by 5.4% since 2003-4. Persistent disruptive behaviour was the reason for the majority of fixed term exclusions (23.3%) and permanent exclusions (29.6%) in 2008-9. These numbers have not shown substantive change year on year indicating that current interventions are not effective. The report recommends that a trigger is needed to prompt a needs assessment where fixed-term exclusions are used continually. to that degree, in the SEN Code of Practice (2001) this trigger should be happening for pupils who do not respond to standard behaviour management strategies or individualised behaviour management programme moving them to a School Action Plus stage. This could suggest that either appropriate referrals are not taking place or, if they are, the resulting interventions are not successful. If the latter is the case then it may indicate that either causes are not being considered or, if considered, are not leading to successful interventions.The American based Assertive Discipline approach to managing behaviour in schools is rooted in a behavioural perspective. A study by Jones and Smith (2004) concluded that the this approach was effective in improving minor mis-behaviour and led to overall benefits for teaching and learning in the school at the centre of the study yet, a small but significant group did not benefit from the approach. This group may therefore have required further modify assessment of the cause of their SEBD with individual strategies being put in place. This lends su pport to the necessity of understanding cause in those specific situations where the standard strategies busy in mainstream schools are not resolving social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. It also suggests that the importance of cause is not essential at initial stages of identification of behavioural difficulties, but may need to be understood if current intervention strategies are not achieving the desired outcome.A key factor in identifying the cause of the SEBD lies in the choice of the perspective adopted. As seen in the web based discussions for Vicki (Vygotsky, Skinner and Montessori November 2010) causes could be attributed to several aspects of the individuals life. Depending on the approach taken, the diagnosis and intervention will vary which means that successful intervention cannot be guaranteed. Overall, whilst there is much debate and research on causality and at the same time growing emphasis on the rise in behavioural difficulties in the class path, classro om based research for children with SEBD tends not to link theory to identification, policy and effective interventions (Maras and Kutnick 1999).Understanding the cause of the SEBD is not essential before making a successful intervention.All perspectives consider cause to some extent although a behavioural approach is founded mainly on observed behaviour. There is little research advocating that identifying cause is not essential or important in terms of implementing interventions. The argument against the value of understanding cause is mainly one of whether knowing the cause can actually lead to a specific and effective intervention. Whilst Visser (2002) advocates the importance of understanding cause, it has proved difficult to find evidence which gives clear guidance for a link between cause and effective intervention strategies. In discussing the Individual, Medical or Deficit Model (IMD), Macleod and Munn (2004) suggest that the implication of causation should be rejected whic h is the reverse of the consideration of disabilities with a bio-medical root. This view is based on the belief that the biggest difficulty in identifying cause is the lack of agreement in what SEBD actually is, as seen in the earlier discussion on the interpretations of definitions. It could be argued that focus should be on strategies and not on cause as interpretations of the cause are too subjective.The web based discussions on Ronnie and Vicki, despite consisting of differing views for diagnosis and cause, saw a commonality in the recommendations for a multi agency approach. This is also seen in Diagram 8 model (Cole, Visser and Daniels1999) in which consultation with the Local Education Authority (LEA) and relevant agencies, such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), is seen as an important factor in schools which are successful in the inclusion of children with SEBD. Whilst Visser (2005) has been cited earlier as an advocate of the need to understand aetiolo gy, in a bubble based on a term he encountered in his professional work, eternal verities, he looked at factors which may be universal in implementation of successful interventions for SEBD (Visser, 2002). Understanding cause of the SEBD was not a factor given which lends support to the view that, whilst understanding cause may be desirable and informative, there are more important factors necessary for successful intervention. Only a third of secondary schools were deemed as effective in meeting the needs of pupils with SEBD (Ofsted 2004), which suggests that focus should be on identifying effective strategies. research carried out by Evans, Harden, Thomas (2004) concluded that there was a trammel evidence base of recommended strategies which were effective for children with EBD and they recommended a focus for more strategical commissioning of future primary research (p.8).In the case of Ronnie (Vygotsky, Skinner and Montessori discussion group October 2010), there was a quest to know more from those assessing the situation. Was it not enough that his behaviour was disruptive and so class room based behavioural strategies should be put in place to make Ronnie learn appropriate behaviour? The answer in this case seems to lie in the understanding of cause. If Ronnie had a learning difficulty, there was support for this being addressed first/or in conjunction with the behaviour interventions. If it then emerged that Ronnie was having problems at home, such as parental conflict or neglect, this may have required another form of intervention. In the case of Vicki (Vygotsky, Skinner and Montessori discussion group November 2010) there was more information on her background situation this meant some probable causes could be explored which could then lead to a range of possible interventions. Having more information still led to a discussion on which perspective may be more applicable and in fact the interventions proposed were mostly similar to those for Ronnie . Although the participants suggestions for interventions for Ronnie tended to be school based whereas those discussed for Vicki were both within school and outside with a wider multi agency approach.Professionals such as teachers, educational psychologists, CAHMS practitioners and behaviour support specialists will all bring their own approaches to the SEBD table. It could be that attempts to understand the cause through a multi-agency strategy may lead to disjointed and confusing interventions at worst and a prolonged period of assessments and treatments at best, neither of which presents an ideal situation for a child (Rayner 1999). The range of interpretations, social constructs and perspectives makes a case for a scientific approach to developing interventions for children with SEBD. The aetiology is acknowledged but it is the present characteristic patterns which are the key to successful interventions.Conclusion Is it essential to understand the cause of an individuals socia l, emotional and behavioural difficulties making a successful intervention?In seeking an answer to this question, much of the published research advocates the need to essay the cause of SEBD before implementing intervention thereby assuming the intervention will be more successful. The difficulty in this belief is twofold foremost the definition of what constitutes social, emotional and behaviour difficulties and in particular at what point the severity requires specific interventions and secondly, which perspectives should be adopted to correctly identify the cause(s) and thus which interventions are most suitable.With the definition of SEBD including a wide range of characteristics, it seems most likely that there is also a wide range of causes and thus a wide range of interventions. Most evidence supports the desire to inquire and define the cause this is also reflected in government and SEN policy and guidelines. Yet evidence to support the importance of this in securing succe ssful intervention is sparse. Overall, whilst the need to understand the cause seems to be supported in research and advocated in government guidelines, the interventions put in place within educational settings are predominantly based on a behavioural approach where it is the observable behaviour which is addressed, measured and evaluated this is where an anomaly exists.Over time, more responsibility and responsibility has been awarded to schools and local authorities for children with SEN including SEBD. This in itself appears to have reduced the focus on understanding cause as schools have to manage this responsibility alongside government directives for improving behaviour in schools. With increasing emphasis on schools primary accountability being for student achievement in academic terms and the move to reduce the number of statements, there is likely to be less emphasis on aetiology in favour of interventions based on controlling children with SEBD certainly in mainstream e ducation. The current governments support of academies may also magnify this as the removal of local authority interlocking means that schools can decide whether there is economic value in seeking input from agencies that may have more concern with aetiology.It may be that there are other factors necessary in implementing successful strategies aside from understanding cause such as the necessity for a positive ethos within the school itself (Cole, Visser, Daniels 1999). It is concluded that understanding the cause of an individuals SEBD is part of the equation for successful intervention but unless the adults responsible acknowledge the cause and seek to promote appropriate and differentiated solutions which can be be to be successful, then understanding on its own is not sufficient.