How effective is the SEAL programme for improving outcomes for LAC and adopted children? Madeleine Burns1, Niamh Friel1, Wendy Lord 2 and Lesley Menzies2 1 St Cadoc’s Primary School, East Renfrewshire 2 Kirkhill Primary School, East Renfrewshire Contact e-mail address: frielN1@st-cadocs.e-Renfrew.sch.uk 1. Introduction Background Identification of research focus Both schools had a group of children who were either LAC or adopted and therefore had experienced disruptions in forming attachments very early in life. It is clear that early attachments are important for child development. Securely attached children are: Better able to learn Able to make new attachments more readily e.g. to peers and teachers Ready to seek help when they experience difficulties Willing to share the attention of adults with their peers Are able to concentrate for sustained periods of time (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning, 2007) All of the children selected to participate in the programme displayed challenges in one or more of these areas. Based on our identified group we researched what made the largest difference to these children and we found that… “A community that values it’s children must cherish their parents” (Bowlby, 1951, pg 84) All of the children are now in stable, loving environments with supportive families and therefore we decided a programme that linked home and school would be the most effective. Family based intervention programmes has a proven record of improving outcomes for children (e.g. Marinus , IJzendoorn, Juffer and Duyvesteyn, 1995) This led us to the identification of the SEAL programme as our intervention Based on the literature on the problems LAC and adopted children can display, there seems to be several key dependent variables that are important to measure: Theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2000), resilience (Ungar and Liebenberg, 2011) and emotional intelligence (Golman, 2007) 2. Methodology Based on the research we decided to implement the following approach: Questionnaires with pupils (see diagram for measures) Interviews with parents Interviews with teachers Pre intervention assessment 10 week SEAL Programme implemented Focus on attachment and building self esteem and resilience Intervention Interviews with children Post intervention assessment Mixed Method (Qualitative and Quantitative) approach with 7 children; Questionnaires (with pupils, see measures below) Semi-structured interviews (with pupils and parents and class teachers) Observations (of the children in the sessions and then following on from the sessions in class) We decided on this methodology because mixed method research was most appropriate for robust analysis “Fitting the approach to the research purposes is the critical issue” (Rossi and Freeman, 1993, p.437) Advantages to both methods- particularly for investigation of complex and sensitive issues Quantitative: validity, objectivity, reliability and generalisation; Qualitative: allows the research to be credible and dependable (Hamberg et al, 1994) Based on this, children were given initial questionnaires, then the 10 week SEAL programme was implemented. Following this the children were reissued with questionnaires. Additionally, we spoke with class teachers during the process and also observed the children.This allowed us to monitor impact throughout the programme. Research Questions Questionnaires Qualitative methods (interviews and observations) Quantative Measures Pupil time 1 Pupil time 2 Emotional Intelligence √ Dweck Mindset (self, child version) Resiliance measure Week 1 Invitations and introductions Week 2 Self awareness Week 3 Managing feelings Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 3. Intervention Programme Motivation Empathy Social skills Social skills Belonging Building Positive relationships Putting the key in place 4. Findings Both sites found the experience a valuable one and this was reported by parents, teachers and children. This was supported by the qualitative data. The quantitative data was more mixed. Children's emotional intelligence scores stayed the same, their Theory of Intelligence decreased and their resilience increased. I really enjoyed the 10 weeks. I liked it when we made the trees, it made me feel happy (pupil 1) My favourite activity was playing with the lego with the other children and making a shelter. I liked it a wee bit (pupil 2) I don’t know what you’re doing with him at school but he’s a changed boy at home so whatever it is, please keep going (Parent 1) The programme was engaging and the children responded very well to it. The lessons were easy to follow. Some children responded better to some of the activities than others (Observations from teacher in sessions) I don’t know what activities you do with him when you take him out but he is an angel for a while when he returns (Teacher 1) 5.Future Work/Difficulties 5. References/Resources It is hoped the programme will be able to run again at both locations. However, this requires space to complete the activities and staff time, which has implications for sustainability We would like to monitor the long term impact of such a programme on the children. While it was evident there were initial improvements in the children this needs to be monitored over time. Further, one site completed the intervention individually with children and the other with a small group. It seems the intervention is slightly more personalised with individual children, however, this is not sustainable within most schools and a small group setting is appropriate enough for the intervention to be completed and have an impact. Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monograph (Serial No. 2) Dweck, C.S (2000). Self- Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. 1- 195 Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence. Random house. Hamberg, K., Johansson, E., Lindgern,G.,& Westman, G. (1994). Scientific rigour in qualitative research: Examples from a study of women’s health in family practice. Family Practice— Oxford University Press, 11(2), 176–181. IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Duyvesteyn, M. G. (1995). Breaking the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: a review of the effects of attachment‐based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security. Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(2), 225-248. Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.F. (1993). Evaluation: a Systematic Approach. 5th edn. London: Sage. Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) (2007). Mini Gold Seal Activity Pack. For Individual Intervention. A Ten Week Programme. Telford and Wrekin Council. Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 126-149.