Abstract
The Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning programme (SEAL), designed to develop children’s social, emotional and behavioural skills in the primary school, was part of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot funded by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and piloted in 25 Local Authorities in the UK. The data collected in the evaluation of the pilot programme included pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaires for Key Stage (KS)1 and KS2 children in 172 schools, questionnaires for teachers, teaching assistants and head teachers in 29 schools and interviews with school staff and pupils in 13 schools. Of the school staff, 90% agreed that the programme had been at least relatively successful overall. All responding headteachers, 87% of teachers and 96% of non‐teaching staff agreed that the programme promoted the emotional well‐being of children, while 82% of teachers agreed that it increased pupils’ ability to control emotions such as anger. Only 48% of teachers agreed that it reduced bullying, although this rose to 74% of non‐teaching staff—suggesting that there was a greater impact on playground as opposed to classroom behaviour in this respect. The interview data indicated that the programme had increased staff understanding of the social and emotional aspects of learning and helped them to better understand their pupils, which changed their behaviour, enhanced their confidence in their interactions with pupils, and led them to approach behaviour incidents in a more thoughtful way. Analysis of the responses to the children’s questionnaires revealed a range of complex relationships between age, gender, questionnaire responses made prior to the pilot, and school factors which made conclusive interpretation of the data problematic.
Introduction
Improving behaviour and attendance at school has been a key priority for the UK government since the mid‐1990s. A number of initiatives have been developed to this end including the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot which took place from 2003 to 2005. The programme aimed to: enable schools in the pilot Local Authorities (LAs) to access high‐quality professional development on behaviour and attendance issues, that was sustained and collaborative; develop and test out models of LA support where behaviour and attendance were key school improvement issues; trial curriculum materials to develop children’s social, emotional and behavioural skills and materials for school self‐review and training in improving behaviour; implement and evaluate small group interventions for children needing additional focused help in this area; and promote the development of a common approach across the 25 participating LAs and other Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) LAs. The pilot had four strands: a universal element providing professional development opportunities to all schools in the pilot authorities (the CPD strand); a targeted element providing focused support to schools where behaviour and attendance had been identified as key issues (the school improvement strand); a universal element providing curriculum work focusing on the social and emotional aspects of learning for all children in pilot schools (the curriculum materials or SEAL strand); and a targeted element providing group work for children needing extra help in this area, and their parents/carers (the small group interventions strand). This paper focuses on the third strand, the introduction of the SEAL programme. Details of the outcomes of the other strands can be found in Hallam et al. (Citation2006).
The Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot was one element of the Every Child Matters: Change for Children agenda which aims for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well‐being. The SEAL programme is based on curriculum materials which aim to develop the underpinning qualities and skills that help promote positive behaviour and effective learning focusing on five social and emotional aspects of learning: self‐awareness, managing feelings, motivation, empathy and social skills. The materials are organised into seven themes: New beginnings, Getting on and falling out, Say no to bullying, Going for goals, Good to be me, Relationships and Changes. Each theme is designed to be implemented at the whole‐school level and includes materials for a whole school assembly and suggested follow‐up activities in all areas of the curriculum. The resources are organised for pupils in different year groups. The curriculum operates as a spiral, each theme being revisited at each level. This paper sets out the findings from the evaluation of the pilot programme with particular reference to the perceived impact on the well‐being of the children in the participating schools, although this was not the primary focus of the initial evaluation.
There have been a number of reviews of initiatives similar in nature to the SEAL programme (Maxwell et al., Citation2008). Durlak and Wells (Citation1997) reviewed 177 programmes which had as their aim the prevention of behavioural and social problems in children and young people living in the USA. They concluded that programmes which modified the school environment, focused specifically on meeting the needs of individual children and young people, and attempted to help children and young people negotiate stressful transitions could have significant positive effects. Similarly, Wells et al. (Citation2003) reviewed studies evaluating a universal approach to promoting emotional well‐being and mental health and found positive evidence for the effectiveness of programmes that adopted a whole‐school approach, were implemented continuously for more than a year, were aimed at the promotion of emotional well‐being and mental health, and focused on changing the school environment. Green et al. (Citation2005) in a review of systematic reviews focusing on the effectiveness of school‐based interventions concluded that a promotional rather than preventional approach was more effective, as were initiatives aimed at changing the school environment rather than brief classroom‐based individually focused programmes.
Focusing on school‐based interventions, Rones and Hoagward (Citation2000) outlined a range of factors which contributed to success, including consistent programme implementation; the inclusion of parents, teachers and peers; the use of different types of programmes such as those focused on behaviour, emotions, cognitive processes and the environment; the integration of programme content into general classroom curricula; and the adoption of age and developmentally appropriate programme components. Taken together, the evidence from these reviews suggests that multi‐component and universal school‐based programmes sustained over a period of one year through the modification of the school environment as well as the development of adaptive cognitive and behaviour strategies among children can be effective in enhancing well‐being (Maxwell et al., Citation2008). The SEAL programme was developed drawing on the findings from earlier studies. While the curriculum materials for the SEAL programme focused on developing the skills of the children, the process of implementation was expected to bring about change in the school environment.
The aim of the research reported here was to evaluate the effectiveness of the SEAL programme in practice adopting multi‐methods, quantitative and qualitative, drawing on responses from school staff and children as suggested by Weare (Citation2004). The terms of reference for the evaluation were defined by the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The findings reported here focus only on the SEAL programme and do not include findings from the work with children with identified behavioural problems which was undertaken in small groups, or from the School Improvement or Continuing Professional Development strands.
Methodology
The evaluation adopted a repeated measures design (pre‐ and post‐assessment) for assessing the impact on the children, while the perceptions of school staff were assessed following the implementation of the programme. There were no formal control schools, although changes in attendance and attainment were compared across the programme as were teacher responses to the implementation of the SEAL and School Improvement strands. The latter will be considered in the discussion.
The rating scale questionnaires for pupils were designed to evaluate the impact on pupils of the curriculum materials. Separate questionnaires were developed for children in Key Stage 1 (aged 5–7 years) and Key Stage 2 (7–11 years), the former being shorter and with a three‐point rather than a five‐point rating scale. The questionnaires assessed pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural skills, their perceptions of classroom and school ethos and their attitudes towards school. They included statements relating to the ability to recognise feelings, respond appropriately to others’ emotions, set goals, examine actions, understand other’s feelings, and talk about feelings. They also assessed perceptions of the learning environment in the classroom, pupil/pupil relationships, pupil/teacher relationships, and feelings about school. They were adapted for use with young children from existing measures, including those developed to assess emotional intelligence (Goleman, Citation1996), readiness for reintegration into mainstream school (McSherry, Citation2001), school and classroom ethos (Fraser & Fisher, Citation1982), and attitudes towards school (Ireson & Hallam, Citation2005). Their construction was undertaken in consultation with participating Local Authority (LA) co‐ordinators and LA project staff to ensure that the developed measures were appropriate and valid. This also served to give LAs a sense of ownership of the evaluation and facilitated contact with participating LA representatives. LAs were encouraged to use the developed materials as part of their own self‐evaluations. Details of the full questionnaires can be found in Hallam et al. (Citation2006).
Post‐intervention questionnaires, including open questions and rating scales were developed for and administered to headteachers, teachers and support staff to explore their perceptions of the impact of the various elements of the project. Pupil questionnaire data were collected from 159 schools participating in the SEAL pilot where staff wished to include pupil data in their self‐evaluations and 13 schools selected by LAs on the basis of their willingness to participate and the recommendations of the LA co‐ordinators. In all of these schools pupils completed pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaires. Staff in 29 schools, including those from the 13 schools selected by the local authorities, also completed questionnaires.
Questionnaire responses relating to the SEAL programme were received from 29 headteachers, 84 teachers/teaching assistants, and 19 non‐teaching staff. Not all of the school staff made responses to the rating scale statements in the questionnaire. Some respondents restricted their responses to the open questions. Children’s responses to the programme were assessed through comparison of their pre‐ and post‐pilot responses to the questionnaires and the interviews undertaken in 13 schools which had been selected as exhibiting ‘good practice’ by the programme co‐ordinators. Questionnaire data were available for 4237 children at Key Stage 1 prior to the introduction of the pilot initiatives and 2163 following it. The children were in the same year group throughout the period of the research. Eighty‐one schools provided KS1 data. At Key Stage 2, 5707 children completed questionnaires prior to the pilot and 3311 following the pilot. The data were from 78 schools.
In consultation with the LA co‐ordinators 13 schools were selected for visits. Five of these schools were implementing the SEAL programme alone, eight alongside other elements of the programme including a school improvement strand and small group work. In the 13 selected schools questionnaire data were collected and interviews were undertaken with staff and pupils. There was a full response rate from staff and pupils who were present at the time. Interviews were undertaken with 13 headteachers, four other senior school managers, 34 teachers/teaching assistants, 19 parents and 102 children. The children were interviewed in small groups which varied in size according to availability. Analysis of data collected from parents can be found in the full report (see Hallam et al., Citation2006).
A consultative conference was held on completion of the field‐work with representatives of participating LAs to facilitate the validation, clarification and interpretation of findings.
Findings
The context of assessing the impact on pupils
In considering the impact of the programme it is important to be aware of the context. The schools participating in the pilot had been encouraged or invited to become involved. In some cases, the LA offered the programme to all schools and in one LA all schools were participating. Invitation to participate variously depended on school size, catchment area, awareness of this type of approach, enthusiasm and commitment, strong leadership and capacity to sustain the initiative. Schools varied in the extent to which they were implementing the SEAL curriculum. In some cases it was restricted to particular year groups, in others the whole school participated. Implementation was sometimes absorbed into the existing curriculum, but elsewhere had a particular focus. In some schools it was taught every day, in others two or three times a week. In most cases, schools were encouraged to use the materials as they best fitted in with current activities. The nature of the pilot programme meant that it was impossible to control for this variation in implementation.
The way that the initiative was disseminated to schools by the LAs varied: teacher coaches, leading teachers, educational psychologists, behaviour support teachers or Healthy School consultants led the introduction of the materials. The psychological concepts underlying the programme were new and difficult to assimilate for some school programme co‐ordinators which led to less than optimal dissemination to staff within their schools. Where training for school staff was inadequate, implementation of the materials was problematic; many staff lacked understanding of the concept of social, emotional and behavioural skills. Some participating schools were already engaged in work relating to improving behaviour, while others had few procedures and practices relating to behaviour in place. Despite these difficulties, the curriculum materials were generally seen as easy to use and linked successfully with Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), Healthy Schools, and existing local initiatives and were well received by the children.
The children are currently looking at the unit Changes. It is very appropriate with them moving up to secondary school. They have loved the gossip game and links were made with rumours about going to secondary school. (Teacher)
Where training was inadequate and insufficient support was given, teachers felt overwhelmed by the volume of material and this created stress and increased workload leading to inappropriate implementation of the programme. Despite this, 90% of the responding teachers indicated that the programme had been at least relatively successful.
Perceived impact on children’s well‐being and social, emotional and behavioural skills
Headteachers, teachers and non‐teaching staff indicated their level of agreement with a range of statements relating to the children’s well‐being and social and emotional development following implementation of the programme. All of the headteachers who completed the rating scale section agreed that the programme had promoted the emotional well‐being of the children, and that it had engendered positive attitudes towards school. Eleven out of 13 agreed that it had raised children’s confidence, nine out of 13 that it had improved their social skills and nine out of 12 that it had improved their communication skills. Forty‐eight percent of teachers responding to the rating scale believed that the programme had reduced bullying, 87% that it had promoted children’s well being, 81% that it had increased pupils’ ability to control emotions such as anger, 67% that it had improved children’s ability to make friends, and 73% that it had improved children’s ability to resolve conflict. Of the non‐teaching staff, 74% indicated that it had reduced bullying, 95% that it had promoted the emotional well‐being of pupils and 84% that it had improved pupils’ social skills (see Table ). It is interesting that those staff responsible for supervising the children’s behaviour out of the classroom perceived a much greater impact on bullying than the teachers. This may be because bullying behaviour is more common in the playground than in the classroom environment.
Table 1. Perceived impact on children’s well‐being, social, emotional and behavioural skills
The data from the interviews supported that from the questionnaires. The programme appeared to be particularly successful in enhancing children’s well‐being. The bullying topic led schools to change their policies and made staff and children more aware of bullying. The programme had an impact on the children’s developing awareness of their own feelings, ability to manage them, and capacity for empathy.
There is a definite change in the children as they move around the school. The first topic that was addressed was the bullying topic and this has stopped all the minor squabbles that take place with children. They seem better able to sort the issues out themselves. The children will talk to the teachers. It seems to have calmed some of the children down and provided strategies for sorting out the problems. If children are finding things difficult they know that they can talk to a teacher. The children in the Yr 4 class are playing better with each other. They will report that they have enjoyed their playtime. (Teacher)
The interviews revealed that the children were perceived as being more supportive of each other as a result of the programme, and relationships between them were strengthened. They had a growing vocabulary to talk about emotions, took more personal responsibility for their actions and became better at sharing, taking turns and seeing things from the point of view of others. Staff also indicated that they were more able to play co‐operatively and interact with others of varying backgrounds and cultures. Staff noted that the children were calmer, knew and understood school values and had greater ownership of them and were more willing to be honest. There also seemed to be an increase in self‐esteem. Teachers reported that knowing that they had to resolve things for themselves and take responsibility had changed children’s awareness and behaviour.
Perceived impact on attendance and behaviour
In the questionnaires and interviews headteachers gave mixed responses as to whether the programme had had an impact on attendance, punctuality and exclusions. Only one headteacher agreed that there had been a reduction in exclusions and some suggested that there had been an increase in fixed‐term exclusions as some children had developed or strengthened anti‐social identities in response to the programme.
There has been an increased number of fixed term, 2 or 3 days exclusions. That is a bit worrying. I think it may be an increased awareness, perhaps clarification of what we will tolerate and what we won’t tolerate, which has probably come out of the SEAL programme and I think every one of them has been for a violent or bullying incident. We are now very clear about what we do. We have very clear and very well defined sanctions for those children who do bully or are unpleasant to other people. (Headteacher)
Table sets out staff responses to the questionnaires regarding the children’s behaviour. Ten out of 13 headteachers agreed that behaviour had improved in the classroom and eight out of 13 that it had improved in the playground. Ten out of 12 agreed that staff/pupil relationships had improved, and that levels of respect for other people had been raised. Motivation was reported to have improved by ten out of 13. Fifty‐nine percent of teachers agreed that the working climate of the school had improved, 57% that the level of anxiety in the classroom had reduced, 64% that classroom behaviour had improved, 51% that behaviour outside of the classroom had improved, 65% that staff/pupil relationships had improved and 65% that levels of respect had risen. Of the non‐teaching staff, 89% agreed that the working climate had changed, 85% that behaviour had improved in school, 79% that it had improved in the playground, 79% that staff/pupil relationships had improved, and 95% that SEAL had engendered positive attitudes towards school among pupils. As reported earlier the non‐teaching staff perceived a greater change in behaviour than the teachers.
Table 2. Perceived impact on children’s behaviour
In the interviews staff reported that the programme impacted positively on the behaviour of the majority of children, but for a small minority more work was needed. Most children developed an understanding of their own emotions and strategies to deal with them. They were reported as wanting to be good, ‘because there is something at the end of it and they get a reward.’ Pupils indicated that ‘being good makes you feel good’ and described how ‘people react better in a fight. Now they walk away instead of getting involved’ and how ‘loads of people used to get really stroppy and stressed but they are not now. Some people still do get stroppy but they know how to calm down.’ The extent of change in some schools was very marked:
There have been some very positive comments about the school and the children. A supply teacher actually said that they wanted to return to the school because it was so nice and friendly. In the past supply teachers would refuse to come to the school. (Headteacher)
However, for some of the older children where behaviour patterns were well established and had been learnt at home change was particularly difficult:
Overall, there have been changes in pupils’ behaviour around school. With the minority, no. This is 3 or 4 children out of the whole school. They have rebelled against the SEAL programme. One saw this as an opportunity to make a name for himself as the bully. We were all talking about the problems of bullies and he saw a role for himself as being the bully. He said to an Ofsted inspector I am the bully of the school and was quite proud of the fact. I don’t think he would have done this before SEAL. He bullies outside and the police are involved on a daily basis, he has an awful home background. Social services are involved, health are involved. (Headteacher)
In the interviews relationships between teachers and pupils in the classroom were reported to be better and calmer. Problems were discussed and solved. Teachers listened to the children more and this was reported to create a friendlier atmosphere. In the playground, the introduction of reward systems, time out areas, and the opportunities afforded by the programme to discuss playground problems led to far fewer children having to be disciplined by senior staff.
One of our more difficult boys came across to me in the yard and said please sir, Adam is having a bit of trouble with some lads over there. I said ‘What are they doing?’ He said, ‘I think they called him a name.’ I then said, ‘What have you done about it?’ He said, ‘I have told them to stop.’ He said ‘I am just letting you know.’ That is something he would not have done prior to the SEAL programme. I really felt quite pleased about that. I thought if he is doing that then it is happening elsewhere. (Headteacher)
Where the programme was implemented across the school, teachers and children focused on the same issue at the same time. The assemblies reinforced work undertaken in the classroom. This whole‐school focus was reported to lead to a better working climate in the school.
Relationships have improved, there is a more professional climate within the school. Staff and children are now more aware of how the school climate, relationships and feelings affect behaviour and learning. We have raised our expectations of children’s social and emotional development across the school. (Headteacher)
Perceived impact on pupils’ work
Headteachers and teachers were cautious in their assessment of the impact of the SEAL programme on school‐work. Eight out of 13 headteachers who responded to the rating scales agreed that it had improved concentration, while 44% of teachers agreed that it had. The pattern of headteachers being more confident of its impact in relation to school‐work was seen through all of the responses (see Table ).
Table 3. Perceptions of the impact on school work
In the interviews some teachers indicated that because the children were calmer, their learning had been enhanced. Others commented that they were able to allocate more of their time to those who needed academic help because they were spending less time dealing with behaviour issues. Some teachers reported a calmer atmosphere, children better able to focus on work and complete tasks more easily, better team and independent working, improved confidence in speaking within the whole group, and a general improvement in speaking and listening skills, motivation, persistence and attitudes towards work.
The pilot has had an impact on pupils’ learning particularly with the Going for Goals with the ‘not giving up’. It fitted in well with the class topic of being independent learners and thinking of other ways to do things. The attitude of the children towards their work is better. (Teacher)
The children’s perspective
In order to undertake analysis of the data collected from the pupil questionnaires responses were summed into a smaller number of categories based on Cronbach Alpha analysis (for details see Hallam et al. Citation2006). At KS1 the groupings were: Self‐esteem and Motivation; Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others; Social Skills and Relationships; Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers; and Academic Work. The same groupings were adopted at KS2 but the grouping Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others was broken down into three groups: Perceptions of Own Emotions; Awareness of Emotions in Others; and Awareness of Own Emotions. An additional grouping entitled Anxiety about School Work was also created.
Age‐related changes in questionnaire responses
Prior to the analysis considering the impact of the programme it was necessary to establish whether there were any age related differences in responses which might confound the analysis of change as a result of the programme. For this reason the responses to each section of the questionnaire were analysed taking account of year group. At KS1 no clear patterns emerged in relation to change in scores over time and age or the interactions between them. At KS2 there were age‐related changes in the pre‐intervention responses in relation to Awareness of Emotions in Others (a small increase between Year 3 and 4); Social Skills and Relationships (a positive trend across year groups); Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers (a negative trend across year groups); and Academic Work (variability with a broadly negative trend). The post‐programme data revealed statistically significant age differences in Self‐esteem and Motivation (a generally negative trend); Social Skills and Relationships (a positive trend); Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers (a generally negative trend with an upturn in Year 6); and Academic Work (a generally negative trend with an upturn in Year 6).
The analysis comparing pre‐ and post‐responses to the questionnaires revealed some statistically significant changes at KS2 including Perceptions of own Emotions (negative change), Awareness of Emotions in Others (positive change), Social Skills and Relationships (positive change), Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers (negative change), and Academic Work (negative change). Overall, the changes were very small. They also overlapped with age‐related changes making it impossible to determine beyond any doubt whether they had occurred as a result of the programme or simply as part of a more general trend occurring as children progressed through school.
Gender differences
There were gender differences in responses to the questionnaire at both KS1 and KS2 (see Table for details). At KS1 there were statistically significant differences in responses to all of the categories both before and after the implementation of the programme. At KS2 there were statistically significant differences in all categories before and after, except in relation to self‐esteem and motivation. With regard to social skills and relationships there was no statistically significant difference after the implementation. The boys showed a positive change whereas the mean for the girls remained the same.
Table 4. Gender differences in pupils’ responses
Multiple regression analyses
To attempt to establish which factors had the greatest impact on post‐programme responses to the questionnaire, age, gender, questionnaire responses prior to the introduction of the programme, and school were entered into a series of multiple regression analyses on the post‐programme questionnaire responses.
At KS1 Self‐esteem and Motivation was predicted by prior score on Self‐esteem and Motivation and year group; Emotions and Awareness of them in Self and Others by prior score and gender; Social Skills and Relationships by prior score, gender and school; Attitudes towards School and Relationships with Teachers by prior score, year group and gender; and Academic Work by prior score and gender. Table sets out the details.
Table 5. Findings from KS1 multiple regression analyses
All of the analyses were statistically significant. However, none of the regressions accounted for substantial amounts of the variance. In all cases responses to the questionnaire prior to the programme were statistically significant predictors of responses following the programme. School was only a significant predictor for Social Skills and Relationships. At KS1 already acquired self‐knowledge and attitudes were the best predictors of responses following the pilot along with gender. Age as assessed through year group was a factor in relation to self‐esteem and attitudes, while school was only important in relation to social skills and the beta weighting for this was very small.
At KS2 the Multiple Rs obtained from the regression analyses for the post‐pilot responses were greater than at KS1 for Social Skills and Relationships and Academic Work (see Table ). In all cases responses made prior to the programme were the most strongly predictive of responses made following the programme. Gender was also a predictor for all responses except Social Skills and Relationships. At KS2 school factors made a contribution to the differences in variance for several outcomes. This may relate to the way that the programme was implemented in individual schools or the more general ethos of the school. A series of multiple regressions on the questionnaire responses prior to the implementation of the SEAL programme of the KS2 children suggested that the school was a predictor of children’s responses prior to the implementation of the programme in relation to all of the elements of the questionnaire except Self‐esteem and Motivation (see Table ). This suggests that school ethos and/or the catchment area from which schools draw their intake play a role in a range of social behaviours and attitudes exhibited by children.
Table 6. Findings from KS2 multiple regression analyses for data collected post the programme implementation
Table 7. Findings from KS2 multiple regression analyses pre the programme
Impact on the staff
Ninety‐two per cent of headteachers agreed that the programme had improved the skills of staff in promoting positive behaviour and improved their confidence. This was supported by the responses from the teachers where 85% agreed that their skills had improved and 91% their confidence, while 71% of teaching assistants agreed that staff confidence had improved. Overall, the majority disagreed that management time, stress and teacher workload had been reduced; 59% of teachers agreed that the working climate in the school had improved and 57% agreed that the level of anxiety in the classroom had reduced; 74% of the non‐teaching staff agreed that the programme had increased staff confidence in working with children whose behaviour was hard to manage, 97% agreed that the programme had improved management of behaviour and 74% that it had reduced staff stress.
The data from the interviews indicated that the programme had increased staff understanding of the importance of social, emotional and behavioural skills for children and the need to develop them through explicit teaching. The programme helped teachers to understand their pupils better and had an impact on the way the teachers behaved as they became aware that they were role models for the children.
It has made me think very hard about how I talk to other people … We are all role models whether we like it or not. (Teacher)
Staff confidence in dealing with behaviour issues in the classroom was enhanced.
They are calmer and more positive. More confident in being able to deal with these different situations. (Headteacher)
The SEAL programme enabled teachers to have a dialogue with pupils about behaviour and refer to the issues raised in the SEAL materials.
It’s given me strategies to deal with things, behaviour and emotional issues … Having the whole class focus helps to refer back to when there are issues. Behaviour issues were recorded in a book and that still happens now. What has changed is that I now also include the emotions of the child … I have got a fuller picture. (Teacher)
Teachers were more aware of children’s circumstances and realised that:
Children can’t just forget what has just gone on and they do bring their baggage with them.
And
It has helped me get to know the children more and therefore I might be more tolerant and understanding of their behaviours or idiosyncrasies. (Teacher)
Support staff developed an understanding of anger and the way that emotions can override logical thought and determine behaviour. This led to better management of behaviour. They tended to shout at the children less and understood that the children needed to calm down, have time out to talk to an adult about the incident, work through why it happened and what the consequences of their actions would be.
Schools reported that changes in lunchtime behaviour had a major impact on school life.
There has been an impact on the deputy particularly at lunch time where she is not needed as much by lunchtime staff. (Teacher)
Discussion
There are considerable limitations to the research reported here. The evaluation of the SEAL programme was part of the evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot and the measures utilised were devised to assess change across each of the four elements of this programme. The focus of the intervention was to improve behaviour and attendance—enhancing the well‐being of the children was not the prime concern. The measures themselves were required to be developed in conjunction with those developing, monitoring and participating in the programme which limited the extent to which the researchers had control of content. The schools participated voluntarily and were not selected randomly. Although interviews were carried out with school staff, observations of the teaching of the curriculum materials were not carried out directly. The evaluation was undertaken over a relatively short time‐scale, limiting the extent to which sustainability and long term impact could be assessed. There was no formal control group, although comparisons were made between teachers’ and headteachers’ responses to the questionnaires from the SEAL and School Improvement strands. The samples for these comparisons were relatively small as a result of which there were few statistically significant differences. However, the headteachers implementing the SEAL programme reported statistically significant stronger agreement that the SEAL programme engendered positive attitudes towards school, while teachers reported the strongest agreement in comparison with other strands of the programme that the SEAL programme raised levels of respect amongst pupils and reduced bullying.
While school staff were generally positive about the impact of the programme, it may not have been the introduction of the SEAL materials per se which enhanced their perceptions of the children’s behaviour and well‐being but simply the focus in the school on improving behaviour. The self‐report data from the children were difficult to interpret. There were a range of complex relationships between age, gender, prior responses on the questionnaire, and school factors which all contributed to children’s perceptions of their emotions, self‐esteem, social skills, attitudes towards school and academic work.
There were clear gender differences in response to almost all of the measures. The girls were consistently more positive in their responses at KS1 and in relation to all categories except self‐esteem and motivation, and social skills and relationships at KS2. There is already extensive evidence indicating that the behaviour of boys tends to be more problematic than that of girls and that their attainment levels tend to be lower. The evidence presented here suggests that boys have more negative self‐perceptions and attitudes towards school even in KS1, although their self‐esteem and motivation, and perceptions of their social skills and relationships improve during KS2. These gender differences need to be taken into account when future programmes are implemented.
The regression analyses indicated a statistically significant contribution of the school in predicting outcomes. At KS1 this was limited to a small weighting on social skills and relationships. At KS2 the weighting was greater in relation to social skills and relationships and school also predicted other outcomes. This was also the case for the data prior to the implementation of the programme. There are several possible interpretations of this which may interact with each other. It is possible that the SEAL programme as implemented in individual schools had an impact. However, it is equally possible that the more general ethos of the school was a factor, or indeed that the nature of the school intake was responsible for differences in children’s self‐perceptions and attitudes.
A weakness of the programme was that it tended to consolidate the negative identity of a minority of disaffected pupils. This meant that there was not a consistent reduction in exclusions. It was reported that additional support would be needed to effect change in these pupils. Some schools worked with small groups of pupils alongside the main programme. This strand of the programme was evaluated separately and led to some positive outcomes for these at‐risk children (see Hallam et al. Citation2006).
The commitment of the senior management team was crucial in determining the effectiveness with which the programme was implemented. This included allowing sufficient time for staff training and planning, enabling staff to develop understanding of children’s social and emotional development, valuing teaching of the programme, and facilitating the integration of the materials into schemes of work for Personal, Social and Health Education in the long term. There were few practical barriers to the implementation of the SEAL programme—the potential difficulty was staff reluctance and anxiety in dealing with sensitive issues, such as bereavement.
At the time of the evaluation, the programme had been relatively unsuccessful in engaging parents. New materials were being designed to address this issue. The findings demonstrated that the outcomes for the children were to a great extent predicted by their questionnaire responses prior to implementation of the programme. While school factors may be implicated to some extent in these responses, behaviour learnt at home will also be important. Engaging parents early in promoting their children’s well‐being would seem, therefore, to be of critical importance.
Despite these weaknesses, positive outcomes of the implementation of the programme included the introduction of the language of emotion into schools, increased awareness of difficult emotions and the provision of ways and materials to consider them, and the facilitation of the development of staff social and emotional skills. Where implemented fully, the programme promoted whole school engagement, encouraged dialogue about behaviour, attitudes and choices, and was sustainable over time. Overall, the SEAL programme was successful in individual schools in relation to the extent that it reflected the key elements outlined by Maxwell et al. (Citation2008).
Notes on contributor
Susan Hallam is Professor of Education and Dean of the Faculty of Policy and Society at the Institute of Education, University of London. She has received extensive research funding and published widely in relation to issues relating to disaffection from school, ability grouping, learning and behaviour, and the psychology of music and music education.
Related Research Data
References
- Durlak , J.A. and Wells , A.M. 1997 . Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: a meta‐analytic review . American Journal of Community Psychology , 25 (2) : 115 – 152 .
- Fraser , B. J. and Fisher , D. L. 1982 . Evaluation studies: predictive validity of My Class Inventory . Studies in Educational Evaluation , 8 : 129 – 140 .
- Goleman , D. 1996 . Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ , London : Bloomsbury Publishing .
- Green , J. , Howes , F. , Waters , E. , Maher , E. and Oberklaid , F. 2005 . Promoting the social and emotional health of primary school‐aged children: reviewing the evidence base for school‐based interventions . International Journal of Mental Health Promotion , 7 (3) : 30 – 36 .
- Hallam , S. , Shaw , J. and Rhamie , J. 2006 . Evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot , London : Department for Education and Skills . Research report 717
- Ireson , J. and Hallam , S. 2005 . Pupils’ liking for school: ability grouping, self‐concept and perceptions of teaching . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 75 (2) : 297 – 311 .
- Maxwell , C. , Aggleton , P. , Warwick , I. , Yankah , E. , Hill , V. and Mehmedbegivic , D. 2008 . Supporting children’s emotional wellbeing and mental health in England: a review . Health Education , 108 (4) : 272 – 286 .
- McSherry , J. 2001 . Challenging behaviour in mainstream schools: practical strategies for effective intervention and reintegration , London : David Fulton .
- Rones , M. and Hoagwood , K. 2000 . School based mental health services: a research review . Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review , 4 : 223 – 241 .
- Weare , K. 2004 . Developing the emotionally literate school , London : Paul Chapman Publishing .
- Wells , J. , Barlow , J. and Stewart‐Brown , S. 2003 . A systematic review of universal approaches to mental health promotion in schools . Health Education , 103 (4) : 197 – 220 .