Interprofessional support of mental well-being in schools: A Bourdieuan perspective

Abstract

There is increasing international concern about the mental health and well-being of school-aged children, and the school is often seen as the optimum setting to deliver interagency interventions. This paper draws on a Scottish study examining the responses of local authorities, schools and other agencies to challenging behaviour related to poor mental health. It explores the ways in which the presence of workers from other agencies had an impact on the capacity of schools to respond to such issues. In Bourdieuan terms, the study showed that non-teaching workers imported into school developed new forms of 'habitus' leading to effective team work to support vulnerable pupils, but that they often operated in isolation from the wider teaching staff. Different professional cultures created significant barriers, which could be exacerbated by active resistance to meaningful engagement. Consequently, parallel working evolved, where staff from agencies other than education supported pupils experiencing difficulties, but there was little evidence of corresponding changes to ethos or pedagogy to meet the needs of pupils in school. Expertise pertaining to the mental well-being of pupils thus tended to be compartmentalized and was not readily transferred elsewhere, and this led to a disjointed experience for pupils. Our evidence strongly suggested that teachers preferred to learn from other teachers. This served to reinforce existing habitus and to isolate them from new ways of thinking. Potential ways of effecting culture change are suggested, through innovative training and development, linked to accountability, to challenge the new mode of parallel working before it becomes the status quo.

Jurisdiction in school social workers’ and teachers’ work for pupils’ well-being

“…Lipsky, 1980). Spratt, Shucksmith, Philip, and Watson (2006) observed similar patterns. In addition, international research has shown that school social workers often lack a clear role in the school (Altshuler & Webb, 2009;Anand, 2010;Peckover, Vasquez, Van Housen, Saunders & Allen, 2012).…”

“…In schools, the pupil healthcare organisation seems to have this function with the aim of creating an environment that promotes pupils' learning, development, and health (Socialstyrelsen, 2014). Nonetheless, this study shows that tensions can emerge between teachers' expectations to be able to hand over problems and to get emotional support from the school social worker and school social workers' desire to first of all represent and support the child (Hjelte, 2005;Spratt, Shucksmith, Philip, and Watson, 2006). A general pattern is that teachers feel that school social workers do not adequately take organisational needs into account while school social workers feel that teachers do not give enough attention to individual pupils' needs.…”

A Grounded Theory of Collaborative Synchronizing in Relation to Challenging Students

“…Nevertheless, my findings also confirm other research (e.g., Robinson, 2002;SlonskiFowler & Truscott, 2004;Spratt et al, 2006) that indicates that problems and pitfalls easily might arise when teachers and other professionals interact with each other and with students and their parents. By analyzing teachers, principals, nonschool situated resource team members (trained social workers and special educators), challenging students, and parents' reported experiences and representations about their interactions and collaborations, I have developed a grounded theory of collaborative synchronizing in relation to challenging students in school.…”

“…Here an "us and them" thinking had been generated in which each professional group had negative social representations or stereotypes about each other. The problems of professional boundaries, mistrust, and out-group devaluation in multiprofessional collaboration in school settings have also been shown in other studies (Meyers et al, 1996;Robinson, 2002;Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004;Spratt et al, 2006).…”

“…• the problems of professional boundaries, mistrust, and professional outgroup devaluation, especially teachers' suspicions, skeptical attitude, or rejection of nonteaching professionals who in turn are aware of this suspicion and potential hostility, and thus avoid engaging with teachers (Robinson, 2002;Spratt, Shucksmith, Philip, & Watson, 2006); • teachers who feel threatened when encouraged to question their own practice and to try working in other ways (Farrell, Howes, Jimerson, & Davies, 2009); • nonteaching professionals are not comfortable with offering consultation to teachers regarding issues of classroom practice (Robinson, 2002); • insufficient teacher involvement or participation in the process and lack of respect for teachers by some nonteaching workers (Meyers, Valentino, Meyers, Boretti, & Brent, 1996;Robinson, 2002;Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004); • teachers generally cited lack of time and scheduling difficulties as reasons for their inability to become involved (Robinson, 2002); • low degree of treatment integrity in how teachers cope with team-recommended interventions (Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow & Sw ank, 1999Noell, 1996; and • weak or insufficient parent involvement and participation in the process as well as lack of respect for parents (Klingner & Harry, 2006).…”