Teacher-Parent Collaboration: Early Childhood to Adolescent

Teacher–Parent Collaboration describes specific challenges that arise in schools and early childhood settings which comm...

Author: Louise Porter

43 downloads 5264 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Teacher–Parent Collaboration describes specific challenges that arise in schools and early childhood settings which commonly require collaboration between teachers and parents. Separate chapters outline how teachers can respond to the needs of parents whose sons or daughters have disabilities or chronic illness, are gifted learners, are displaying disruptive or aggressive behaviour (including bullying) at school, or whose families are enduring adversity or child neglect or abuse. This book describes how teachers can collaborate with parents to resolve these challenges to improve the children’s functioning and achievement throughout their education years.

ISBN 978-0-86431-623-3

Teacher–Parent Collaboration Early childhood to adolescence

LOUISE PORTER

About the author Dr Louise Porter PhD, MA (Hons), MGiftedEd, DipEd is a child psychologist and trained teacher with almost 30 years’ experience working with children, their parents and educators. She has published widely and is currently an adjunct senior lecturer in Education at Flinders University, South Australia.

Teacher–Parent Collaboration

Teacher–Parent Collaboration: Early childhood to adolescence describes the skills teachers will need for productive collaboration with their students’ parents. It employs a solution-focused approach which honours the diversity of families, respects the expertise of both parents and teachers and promotes authentic communication between them.

9 780864 316233

LOUISE PORTER


01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd i

15/1/08 11:47:33 AM

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd ii

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

4EACHERn0ARENTå #OLLABORATION Early childhood to adolescence

LOUISE PORTER ACER Press

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd iii

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

First published 2008 by ACER Press, an imprint of Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd 19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell Victoria, 3124, Australia www.acerpress.com.au [email protected] Text © Louise Porter 2008 Design and typography © ACER Press 2008 This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted under the current statutory licence scheme administered by Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, broadcast or communicated in any form or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Edited by Renée Otmar, Otmar Miller Consultancy, Melbourne Cover design by Andrew Ritchie Text design by Kerry Cooke, eggplant communications Typeset by Kerry Cooke, eggplant communications Printed in Australia by Hyde Park Press National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Porter, Louise. Teacher-parent collaboration : early childhood to adolescence. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 9780864316233 (pbk). 1. Education - Parent participation. 2. Parent-teacher relationships. 3. Home and school. I. Title. 371.192

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd iv

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Contents

Part I

Dedication

ix

Foundations of collaboration

1

1

Rationale for collaborating with parents Parent–teacher relationship styles Dimensions of parental involvement A rationale for collaboration Measures for supporting parents’ interest in their children’s education Conclusion

3 3 10 15 15 21

2

Honouring diversity Family composition and size Working parents Child care Divorce Single parenthood Young mothers Lesbian mothers Stepfamilies Intermittent parental absence Grandparent guardians Families from minority cultures Engaging diverse families Conclusion Additional resources

23 23 24 25 27 29 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 39 40

3

Communication skills Interaction styles Authentic listening Assertiveness Collaborative problem solving

41 42 44 48 52

v

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd v

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

vi

Contents

4

Conclusion Additional resources

54 54

Solution-focused problem solving Guiding principles Steps for solution building View problems differently Solution-focused consultation Referrals Conclusion Additional resources

55 55 57 66 69 71 71 72

Part II Problem solving with parents 5

6

7

8

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd vi

Collaborating with parents of children with disabilities or chronic illnesses Parents’ reactions to their child’s disability Services sought by parents Children living with chronic illness Communicating with parents of able children Conclusion Additional resources

73 75 75 79 87 91 92 92

Collaborating with parents of gifted learners Sources of conflict between teachers and parents of gifted learners Provisions sought by parents of gifted learners Support for parents Conclusion Additional resources

94 99 104 112 114 114

Collaborating with parents to solve disruptive behaviour Attention deficits Educational assessment Educational interventions Behavioural guidance Support for parents Conclusion Additional resources

116 117 119 120 121 126 127 128

Collaborating with parents to solve school-based aggression and bullying Developmental trends in aggression

129 129

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Contents

vii

Types of aggression Responding to the concerns of parents of victims Collaborating with parents of perpetrators Conclusion Additional resources

131 140 145 150 151

9

Supporting families who are experiencing adversity Effects of family adversity Chaotic households Stressed neighbourhoods Poverty Parents with disabilities Parents with mental illness Parental drug use Parental conflict Spousal abuse Family bereavement Promoting resilience in disadvantaged students Support for parents Conclusion Additional resources

152 153 153 153 154 157 158 159 160 161 162 164 166 169 169

10

Collaborating with parents whose children are abused Types of abuse A profile of perpetrators Effects of abuse Support for students Support for parents Responding to allegations of abuse by staff Conclusion Additional resources

171 172 173 176 182 184 187 188 188

Bibliography Index

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd vii

189 255

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Figures and Tables

Figures I.1 4.1 7.1 8.1

Components of collaboration in schools Phases of solution-focused problem solving A recursive cycle of escalating disruptiveness and coercion Types of aggression

2 56 122 132

Tables 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1

Continuum of parent–teacher relationship styles Effects of parents’ self-efficacy on their style of involvement in schools Number of births to cohorts of Australian women Percentage of marriages with both partners still alive Percentage of marriages with both partners still alive and together Percentage of Australian sole-parent families with dependent children Communication styles determined by perceptions of self and parents

4 20 24 27 27 30 41

viii

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd viii

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Dedication

To my daughter’s Steiner teachers, in gratitude and admiration

ix

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd ix

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd x

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Part I Foundations of collaboration Your students will feel safe when they see the adults from the two parts of their lives, school and home, come together to focus on their interests. When, in your interactions, you honour your students’ parents, the students themselves will feel honoured (Keyser 2006). And when children see their parents relating comfortably with their teachers, they perceive this as ‘permission’ to develop comfort and trust in you also (Keyser 2006). Through their interactions with each other, parents and teachers gain access to information, acknowledgment, support and a sounding board for their educational concerns about students, while authentic interactions between them enhance the self-confidence of both (Keyser 2006). Of course, when referring to ‘parents’ throughout this book, I include any caregivers who are significant to young people in schools, regardless of whether these adults are the students’ biological parents or not. In many families, grandparents or other extended family members have crucial roles as elders, or as prime or supplementary care providers for children. Similarly, although in this book I address you as the teacher, the principles of collaboration apply to any paediatric professional whose role is to teach children or promote their development. As a teacher or other professional, your primary responsibilities are to the children in your care. However, any individuals who are in ongoing contact unavoidably have an influence on each other (Fisch & Schlanger 1999). Therefore, what happens with your students during their day at school goes home with them and reverberates within their family environment. And some of what happens at home comes in with them when they start their day at school. Like the ripples that spread outwards when a pebble is dropped into a pond, events in one location can affect individuals elsewhere. This interplay between children and their

01 Teach_parent_TXT_FINAL.indd 1

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

2


families means that your role is more multifaceted than simply relating with students. You need also to be attuned to their family experience. Collaboration with your students’ parents is a process built upon a personal commitment, which comes from having a clear rationale and a high level of collective and personal self-efficacy. This commitment, which honours the diverse structures and backgrounds of families, employs authentic communication skills, provides curricula and solutions to problems that are in tune with parents’ and students’ aspirations, and occurs within a parent-driven relationship. These elements are depicted in Figure I.1. Parent-driven context

Personal commitment

Honouring diversity

Authentic communication

Solutions

Figure I.1: Components of collaboration in schools Source: adapted from Friend & Cook (2007, p. 23)

The four chapters in Part I of this book describe these components of collaboration in schools, while the chapters in Part II apply them to specific, school-based challenges that commonly require collaboration with parents.


15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

1

Rationale for collaborating with parents

Entering interactions only to give – whether knowledge, support, direction, or something else – with no acknowledgement of what others can contribute, inhibits not only what we might receive but also the full potential of what we seek to give. Barrera & Corso (2002, p. 106)

A student’s adjustment to school relies, at least in part, on the practical and emotional resources made available to him or her over the years from home, school and the wider community (Christenson 2004; Deslandes et al. 1999). An over-riding rationale for collaborating with your students’ parents, then, is to coordinate these sources of support. Parents and teachers commonly believe in the value of education, want the best for children and want them to be happy at school. Yet, teacher– parent relations are often strained (Hughes & MacNaughton 2002). I contend that this is because their relationships are based on a flawed model that entrenches a power imbalance between parents and teachers. The problem is one of politics.

Parent–teacher relationship styles As teachers, our reasons for engaging with parents in schools differ according to the model that we use to guide our interactions. As summarised in Table 1.1 (page 4), there is a continuum of parent–teacher relationship styles, ranging from those that are driven by professionals through to those directed by parents. These speak to the overt power differences between teachers and parents. However, in schools, parent–teacher relationships are also characterised by concealed power. Educators have supremacy by virtue of their expertise, being part of the system and being the ones who frame understandings of students’ disabilities or behavioural difficulties

3


15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

Source of their child’s problems Joint victims

Comply with practitioner advice Show deference towards professionals

Practitioners locate deficits within the child or family

Practitioners dictate goals and interventions

To advise parents of their child’s needs and program

One-way flow of information Parent training

Secondary schools

View of parents

Parents’ role

Assessment

Source of goals or priorities

Purpose of interaction with parents

Communication style

Common venues

Professional-driven


Primary schools Preschools Child care centres

Some early intervention services

Some private practitioners e.g. tutors, therapists

Communication aims to build a relationship and support parents’ interest in their child’s education Responsive to parents Collaborative consultation

To listen to parents so that practitioners can provide a service that meets their goals

Parents and students articulate their own goals or aspirations

Solution focused: identify solutions that are already in place

Parents steer their child’s education Parents choose their style of participation

Family leaders Teachers’ employers

Family-driven

Sources: Dunst 2002; Osher & Osher 2002

To empower parents to meet their child’s and family’s needs

Joint goal setting and shared decision making to meet family needs

Practitioners assess children’s needs and the family’s strengths

Parents and teachers share responsibility for planning and enacting programs

Equal participants with complementary skills and expertise

Family-centred

Communication is task Communication aims to build a focused relationship and empower parent Parent education participation

To engage parents in helping practitioners to teach their child

Parents consent to a program designed by practitioners

Practitioners assess children’s needs

Carry out assigned tasks to support their children’s learning at school and home

Agents of practitioners

Family-allied

Table 1.1: Continuum of parent–teacher relationship styles

4 Teacher–Parent Collaboration

15/1/08 11:47:34 AM


5

(Fylling & Sandvin 1999). Furthermore, teachers are university educated and typically come from the middle classes and the dominant culture, while parents may be none of these things. Even without these differences in background, parents have needs that make them vulnerable (Waters 1996). When their child is young and a new school entrant, has recently changed schools, or has additional educational or emotional needs, parents are especially reliant on the quality of care and education that you provide their child. Yet, they have imperfect information on which to base their selection of school and, even when confident that they have selected the ‘right’ one, are painfully aware that they cannot anticipate problems that might arise after they have enrolled their child (Larner & Phillips 1994). Changes of teacher, the unfolding needs of a growing child and other unforeseen events can neither be anticipated nor guarded against. This vulnerability makes parents reliant on teachers.

Professional-driven interactions The first style of parent–teacher relationships is characterised by teacher dominance. When professionals ‘drive’ their relationships with parents, it is assumed that they are exclusively qualified to apply a specialised body of knowledge that is considered the only information relevant to the issue at hand (Osher & Osher 2002; Thompson et al. 1997). They are the ones to assess children’s needs, interpret these to parents and formulate a suitable program, with parents expected either to defer to practitioners’ diagnoses and comply with their recommendations, or clear the scene to allow the professionals to get on with their job. Parents must either accept professionals’ advice or go elsewhere (Osher & Osher 2002). From this elevated position, professionals often regard parents as the source of children’s problems, particularly when their family is disadvantaged socially or has a structure other than the idealised nuclear family (Fylling & Sandvin 1999). Sometimes this view is softened into a conceptualisation of parents as joint victims with their child, as being somewhat fragile and in need of ‘empowerment’. For their part, children are considered too young, badly behaved, incompetent or troubled to participate in devising solutions to their problems (Osher & Osher 2002). Thus, within this model, professional diagnosis focuses on deficits, within children and/or their families. When students are making inadequate progress at school, for example, teachers often blame this on a lack of family support, rather than reflecting on the nature of teaching. Although this model is usually ascribed to the medical profession, from the middle of the 20th century some schools not only evolved an unwritten ethos of ‘No parents past this point’, but on school gates some


15/1/08 11:47:34 AM

6


actually posted signs to that effect. This view has been termed ‘turfism’. One review found it to be common in schools today, particularly at secondary level (Dunst 2002). Turfism dictates that parents should assist their children with their school work and behaviour, but must not interfere by questioning teachers about their curriculum or teaching strategies (Daniels & Shumow 2003). Within this style of relationship, the rationale for engaging with parents is largely to give them enough information to explain the professional’s recommendations and how he or she is planning to achieve these. Hence, communication largely entails a one-way flow of information from the practitioner to parents. The first disadvantage of professional dominance is that it can work only when short-lived, but will not sustain an ongoing relationship (Galil et al. 2006). During a medical crisis or when a child’s learning difficulties are being diagnosed, for example, it is clearly vital that parents receive enough information to be able to make prudent decisions. But even in these instances, the professional’s expert stance makes it less likely that information about children’s needs will be provided sensitively or with follow-up so that parents can ask their questions (Whitehead & Gosling 2003). Instead, a hierarchical frame of reference and deficit orientation lead to attempts at ‘parent education’, which implies a one-way flow of information from the skilled (the professionals) to the unskilled and inadequate (that is, parents) (Winton, Sloop & Rodriguez 1999). The effectiveness of this style of parent training is doubtful, however. Some research has found that the quality of parenting improves barely at all, with only weak benefits for children’s development or behaviour (Fagan & Iglesias 1999; Wagner, Spiker & Linn 2002). In short, this is not a model for the 21st century. It cannot equip teachers with the information from parents that they need to teach their students well, nor secure for them the support of parents. Its deficit orientation criticises parents and leaves teachers feeling increasingly pessimistic over time about their inability to counteract family ‘inadequacies’ (Daniels & Shumow 2003). It sets up teachers to fail by expecting them to be the ones to generate solutions to problems that are beyond their sphere of influence. And this professional-driven stance contravenes both the spirit and provisions of departmental policies on parent collaboration.

Family-allied relationships Epitomised in the platitude that, ‘Parents are their child’s first (or best) teachers’, a common stance within schools, preschools and child-care centres is that parents should actively help teachers to educate their children (Dunst 2002). This view recognises that families and parents cannot work in isolation: parents need schools and teachers need parents


15/1/08 11:47:34 AM


7

(Christenson 2004). Therefore, educators accept the responsibility to communicate with parents about their child’s education, while parents are expected to support the school. Nevertheless, this parental engagement is often only in token activities that do not challenge teachers’ domain, with teachers directing parents and the two working in parallel rather than jointly (Elliott 2003). However, even these relatively modest expectations for parents are both excessive and unworkable. They are excessive because it is not parents’ job to act as their children’s teachers, to ‘police’ homework completion, or to discipline their children at home for problems that occur at school. Parents function best as parents: they ‘should not try to feel like teachers, or act like social workers or behave like psychologists’ (Blodgett 1971, p. 92). And the expectations are unworkable, because parents’ instructional support is seldom beneficial. For children with disabilities, for example, placing parents in the role of their child’s instructor does not improve outcomes for children, and can even be detrimental to them and to their family (Foster, Berger & McLean 1981; Ramey & Ramey 1992; White, Taylor & Moss 1992). Formal instruction highlights for parents their child’s difficulties, can focus them on the next developmental skill and thus deny them the opportunity to appreciate their child’s present skills and qualities, can limit the exchange of affection between parent and child as the parent becomes task focused rather than nurturing, and can require parents to neglect their other commitments to themselves and other family members (Harris & McHale 1989). Instead, across the ability range, formal teaching by parents is less vital than merely reading to their young children. This is beneficial both because it fosters children’s literacy skills and allows them thereafter to access information independently (Halle, Kurtze-Costes & Mahoney 1997). The second reason that a family–allied model fails us in schools is similar to the shortcomings of professional-driven relationships. This is that, in dictating how parents should raise their children, it pits teachers against those parents who do not conform to expectations. An adversarial and confrontational relationship is established, which leads to more negative or fewer interactions between teachers and nonconformist parents (RimmKaufman & Pianta 1999). The end result is that the parents and students who most need teacher support in order to be educationally successful are the ones who are least likely to receive it (Hill & Taylor 2004; RimmKaufman, Pianta & Cox 2000; Schulting, Malone & Dodge 2005).

A family-centred philosophy Family-centred relationships are based on a philosophy of openness to parents. They uphold that schools and families share the common task of educating young people (Adams & Christenson 2000). Therefore, power


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

8


between parents and teachers is equalised (Daka-Mulwanda, Thornburg & Klein 1995), with the two collaborating to determine goals for children’s education, jointly planning strategies and sharing responsibility for delivering educational programs (Friend & Cook 2007; Hostetler 1991). Nevertheless, while power is shared between parents and teachers, the two can fulfil different roles, as negotiated between them. This philosophy recognises that teachers and parents have complementary expertise. Thus, family-centred practice entails both equal status and parity, which refers to valuing and blending each partner’s ideas and knowledge (Christenson 2004; Friend & Cook 2007). While recognising teachers’ expertise, a collaborative stance also appreciates that parents have the most important and enduring relationship with their children, possess detailed knowledge about them across time and in a variety of settings, have a strong commitment to their children and families, and know best how to meet their family’s and individual children’s needs. By harnessing this intimate knowledge, you gain information that helps you to teach these students, while feeling assured of parents’ support for your efforts. In a departure from the deficit orientation characterised by the two interaction styles described previously, family-centred relationships focus on the strengths of both students and their families (although the presumption that practitioners are the rightful diagnosticians of these assets violates the principles of true collaboration). Having diagnosed, teachers and parents will jointly design an intervention to meet the needs of children and their parents. On the understanding that, when families are functioning successfully children can function successfully, some support focuses directly on the parents, not just the child (Dunst, Trivette & Deal 1994; McWilliam, Maxwell & Sloper 1999). Communication aims to empower both parents and teachers to meet students’ needs (Turnbull et al. 2006) by exchanging information and building a relationship that enables them to function as equal and joint participants in decision making. There are two disadvantages of this model. First is that there is little evidence of its effectiveness. One study within early intervention found no developmental gains for children with disabilities, no reductions in parental stress, nor any improvements in parent–child interaction patterns in those programs that were family centred, compared with those that were child centred (Mahoney & Bella 1998). Second, despite being a legislative requirement within special education in the United States (Deslandes et al. 1999) and being stated education policy in many other places, family-centred practice is rare in early intervention services and even less common in preschools and schools (Dunst 2002; McWilliam et al. 1999). Even when enacted, it is tinged with the sense that schools


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


9

are ‘giving’ parents equality, rather than that equality is their entitlement (Roffey 2002). Many writers explain the dearth of family centredness in schools as being due to teachers’ lack of training for collaborating with parents (e.g. Bruder 2000; Soodak et al. 2002). However, when practice so often falls short of its stated goals, the fault cannot lie with such vast numbers of practitioners. Instead, the model is failing them. Family-centred practice is impractical in schools because teachers lack the resources (especially time) that they would need to establish frequent enough contacts with parents (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta 1999). This is particularly so for high schools, where teachers instruct a large number of classes and thus would have to form relationships with unmanageable numbers of parents. For their part, parents must develop trust in many teachers (Adams & Christenson 2000). This inevitably results in a lessened focus on parent–teacher interactions at this age level (Cattley 2004). Thus, whereas the family-allied model imposes inappropriate expectations on parents, a family-centred model imposes inappropriate expectations on teachers, particularly when it comes to supporting students and families with multiple problems. While it is fair to expect teachers to be skilled communicators – as that is the essence of teaching – it is unreasonable to expect them to possess the counselling skills and experience needed to act as social workers, psychologists or counsellors. The more challenging the students, the more skilled teachers have to be at their job – but their job is teaching. In a diverse society, this is enough to expect. Children need dental care, but that does not mean that their teachers should perform dentistry along with their other duties. We must let teachers do what they do best: teach – and, when students and their families have issues that are beyond teachers’ sphere of responsibility, to refer them to relevant outside services.

A parent-driven model In its stance that teachers and parents are full and equal partners, familycentred practice gives too much power to professionals – without, however, giving them the resources or knowledge base to exercise that power. The one remaining option, then, is for teachers to adopt a parentdriven model to guide their relationships with their students’ parents. This stance honours parents’ role as family leaders. It recognises that, more than being mere consumers or even equal participants in a partnership with you, parents are actually your employers. Their function is not to help you teach their children, but the reverse: they employ you to assist them in raising skilled, knowledgeable and well adjusted children. They


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

10


hire you for your expertise as an educator, much as they might employ doctors, naturopaths or other practitioners to consult about their children’s health, and tutors and various therapists to advise on children’s developmental or atypical educational needs. Parents pay your salary by way of private school fees or taxes for public education. Therefore, your task is to further their aims for their children. In a parent-driven model, you are accountable to parents: they are not accountable to you. Using the analogy of taking a road trip, in a parent-driven approach, parents work out the route, with the practitioner holding the map as a guide so that the parents can reach their destination satisfied by the journey and its outcome (Tannen 1996, in Osher & Osher 2002). In other words, parents are the ones to steer their children’s education. This style of interaction assumes that parents know more about themselves and their family than outsiders ever will (Selekman 1997). It also assumes that young people have the capacity to contribute to solving their own problems. Both students and their parents are the experts in their own needs. This stance extends beyond the family-centred notion of empowering parents, arguing that in reality you cannot give people skills that they are incapable of performing (Murphy 2006). Instead, all that students and their parents need is enfranchisement to use the skills they already have. The parent-driven model shares the aims of the family-centred approach – namely, to build constructive relationships with parents and support their interest in their children’s education. This transforms communication from ‘telling’ parents to listening to them (Dunst, Trivette & Deal 1988, 1994; Sokoly & Dokecki 1995). Parent ‘education’ becomes collaborative consultation through which professionals respond to parents’ expressed requests for information, rather than assuming what parents need to learn and imposing training on them (Winton et al. 1999).

Dimensions of parental involvement Parental engagement with their children’s schooling can span three dimensions: values, beliefs and aspirations; indirect support and involvement at home; and direct engagement at school (Fan 2001; Grolnick et al. 1997; Hong & Ho 2005; Kohl et al. 2000; Raffaele & Knoff 1999; Scott-Jones 1995; Singh et al. 1995). Parents’ values, beliefs and aspirations about education explain why they become involved, while the remaining two dimensions describe the form their involvement takes (Fan 2001). These three dimensions may be quite distinct from each other, have differing effects on children’s educational outcomes (Fan 2001; Keith et al. 1998) and will be more or less appropriate and effective, depending on the children’s ages (Singh et al. 1995).


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


11

Values, beliefs and aspirations Parents’ negative values, particularly their attitudes to schooling itself, will to some extent limit their educational involvement. Some parents distrust schooling altogether as a result of their own schooling history (Miller 2003; Roffey 2002). Many have residual feelings of anger, fear or distrust of teachers as a result of their childhood school experiences (Rafaelle & Knoff 1999), while some from minority cultures or socially disadvantaged groups regard middle-class education as a form of imperial colonisation. Many parents resent the dictates of teachers and intrusions by schools into their family life, such as with the imposition of homework. Such negative parental attitudes indirectly reduce children’s educational attainments by minimising their academic engagement and also by lowering teachers’ expectations, particularly when teachers perceive a difference in education-related values between themselves and their students’ parents (Hauser-Cram, Sirin & Stipek 2003). On the other hand, parents’ positive values do not necessarily lead to active engagement in their children’s education (Jodl et al. 2001): their engagement will also depend to some extent on parents’ beliefs about their own versus teachers’ roles. Parents from lower socioeconomic circumstances tend to give schools more autonomy over their children’s education than do middle-class parents (Wood & Baker 1999). Across all groups, however, some believe that schools should meet their children’s educational needs; others assess that schools are not adequately resourced to do this and therefore that they must provide supplemental teaching at home; while still others value home time as an opportunity for relaxation and leisure, not for doing more schoolwork (Coots 1998). Thus, when children have learning difficulties, some parents respond by increasing the amount of academic work that they oversee at home, while others reduce it to nil to give their children time to relax (Coots 1998). Those with the economic resources to hire tutors sometimes prefer this to teaching their children themselves (Coots 1998). In terms of aspirations, most parents want their children to do well in school, have friends and contribute to their communities in adulthood (Hanson et al. 1998). They hold optimistic expectations for their children’s futures (Halle et al. 1997; Wood & Baker 1999). Nevertheless, when asked how much schooling they would like their child to complete, their expectations in large part reflect their children’s actual abilities and become more realistic as these unfold over time (Clare, Garnier & Gallimore 1998; De Civita et al. 2004; Singh et al. 1995). Parents who themselves are well educated expect their children to be also (Davis-Kean 2005; Singh et al. 1995). It is not surprising, therefore, that research consistently finds that parents with high aspirations for their children’s learning tend to have


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

12


children who are academically successful, hold positive attitudes towards school and are well adjusted emotionally and socially (Demaray & Malecki 2002; Demaray et al. 2005; Deslandes et al. 1997; Englund et al. 2004; Fan 2001; Fan & Chen 2001; Feinstein & Symons 1999; Flouri 2006; Flouri, Buchanan & Bream 2002; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems & Holbein 2005; Hill et al. 2004; Izzo et al. 1999; McBride, Schoppe-Sullivan & Ho 2005; McWayne et al. 2004b; Marcon 1999; Miedel & Reynolds 1999; Paulson 1994; Ratelle et al. 2004; Shumow, Vandell & Posner 1999). But most of these benefits are due to the children’s innate abilities and reflect the advantages of being middle-class (Fan 2001). Children who are economically advantaged receive enough home stimulation to achieve well academically, with or without parental engagement at school (Dearing et al. 2006a; McWayne et al. 2004b). Parents’ high aspirations do, however, have some small additional benefits, over and above the advantages children enjoy from being capable and receiving adequate stimulation and resources. One study found that higher levels of parental aspirations lowered the likelihood of academic failure during primary school by 48 per cent compared with equally poor but low-aspiring parents (De Civita et al. 2004). When parents hold higher aspirations, the children themselves develop high self-appraisals and consequently achieve better initially and make more academic progress than those with similar aptitude but whose parents have lower expectations (Fan 2001; Halle et al. 1997). Particularly in the primary school years, parents’ aspirations influence young people’s commitment to schooling by conveying to them the sense that their parents value both them and their education (Bouchey & Harter 2005; De Civita et al. 2004; GonzalezDeHass et al. 2005; Hong & Ho 2005; Jodl et al. 2001; Marchant, Paulson & Rothlisberg 2001; Noack 2004; Scott-Jones 1995). In turn, young people internalise their parents’ values about effort and learning.

Indirect involvement at home Parents can encourage their children’s educational attainment through providing indirect support at home. This can involve keeping informed of what is happening for their children at school, monitoring their academic progress, reading to them and providing intellectually stimulating activities for them at home and within the community. These forms of emotional support actually have more influence on children’s academic outcomes than parents’ direct participation at school (Ho & Willms 1996). The benefits are particularly tangible during early childhood, when parents’ high-quality instruction and guidance teach children to regulate their emotions and, thereby, help their children to develop the task attack and social skills that are necessary for academic success (Englund et al. 2004; Hill & Craft 2003).


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


13

A more interventionist form of home-based support is providing active help with children’s schoolwork. As well as their values affecting whether they take on this role (as already discussed), there are three additional constraints on parents’ abilities to do this. First, their children’s characteristics can influence this choice. For example, when children have behavioural difficulties, their parents are less willing to incite outbursts by attempting formal tutoring or supervising their homework (Coots 1998). Second, some parents may want to assist their children’s learning at home but they themselves received little education and therefore need additional information from teachers to guide them (Hill et al. 2004; Kohl et al. 2000). A third group of parents are immigrants. Those with little proficiency in English are often reluctant to be present at school and may lack knowledge about the local education system and curriculum (having been educated in their homeland). This can limit their practical support for their children’s learning at home, although these constraints will not limit their educational aspirations or emotional support for their children (Wood & Baker 1999).

Direct engagement at school A second, more visible, form of parent engagement in their children’s education is direct involvement at school. This can occur through attending parent–teacher meetings, being an audience at their children’s school performances, assisting in the classroom, collaborating with teachers to make educational decisions for their child, volunteering on fundraising activities or staffing the canteen and contributing to the development of school policies. However, many parents experience a range of practical impediments to becoming directly involved or present at school. The most significant of these is the competing demands posed by their employment status, having a young baby and moving home (Castro et al. 2004; LambParker et al. 2001). Next, family stress, impoverishment and single parenting (Grolnick et al. 1997; McWayne et al. 2004b), inflexible working hours and purely practical issues such as problems with transport, babysitting and shift work, all limit the flexibility and resources available to support parents’ involvement, particularly of parents with low incomes. Nevertheless, these impediments may limit only their presence, not their educational aspirations for their children or emotional investment and personal interest in their education (Grolnick et al. 1997; Ho & Willms 1996). Parents’ direct engagement in their children’s education seems particularly beneficial during the early childhood years. As well as the indirect instruction that they provide at home, engagement in their child’s care or educational setting can provide parents with information and guidance about child development and parenting dilemmas. This information contributes to more responsive parenting which, in turn,


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

14


enhances children’s educational outcomes. However, by the late primary and high school years, parents’ direct engagement at school has no discernible effect on their children academically (Singh et al. 1995).

Conclusion: Dimensions of parental involvement The conclusion from an abundant body of research is clear: whether parents engage with their child’s schooling is actually less relevant than how they do so. Their overall parenting style, rather than parents’ school engagement as such, most influences children’s educational outcomes (Hill et al. 2004). Controlling parental involvement actually diminishes young people’s academic achievements (Deslandes et al. 1997; Grolnick & Ryan 1989; Hong & Ho 2005; Singh et al. 1995; Steinberg et al. 1992; Taylor, Hinton & Wilson 1995). Intrusive control in the form of authoritarian surveillance by parents of their children’s homework and their delivery of rewards for high grades generates in children less initiative and persistence (Baumrind 1967, 1971; Grolnick, Frodi & Bridges 1984), declining intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1993; Leung & Kwan 1998), less engagement in learning (de Kruif et al. 2000; Kim & Mahoney 2004) and greater negativity towards schoolwork (Dornbusch et al. 1987; Ginsberg & Bronstein 1993; Gonzalez-DeHass et al. 2005; Gottfried, Fleming & Gottfried 1994; Grolnick & Ryan 1989; Maccoby & Martin 1983; Parker et al. 1999; Paulson, Marchant & Rothlisberg 1998; Ratelle et al. 2004; Steinberg, Elmen & Mounts 1989; Steinberg et al. 1992, 1994). In turn, these negative learning styles lead to declining academic and social performances (Aunola & Nurmi 2004; Chen, Dong & Zhou 1997; Mattanah 2001). These findings are paralleled in the early childhood years, where one study found that egalitarian discipline and parents’ responsiveness to their children’s interests during play improved the children’s school readiness, whereas demanding or didactic parental instruction produced in children poorer task orientation and greater negativity towards school work (Parker et al. 1999). Similar conclusions apply to children’s extracurricular activities: young people benefit when their parents facilitate and support their recreational endeavours (Jodl et al. 2001), but when parents pressure or control children’s sporting engagement, the children become less motivated, more anxious, enjoy the activities less, develop less proficiency and are more likely to cease participating (Anderson et al. 2003). In contrast are parents who take an interest in their children’s schooling, without attempting to direct or control it. The benefits of this style of engagement have been demonstrated in studies showing that, while the literacy skills of children whose mothers have little education are typically behind their peers’, when these mothers become responsively


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


15

involved in their children’s schooling, the gaps in both the children’s skills and their self-appraisals dissipate (Dearing et al. 2006a). Thus, parents’ interest and emotional support – both in education and beyond – helps young people, whereas parental control is detrimental emotionally and to students’ performances. This is explained by selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan 2000, Ryan & Deci 2000), which holds that being self-governed (that is, autonomous) is an innate human need. Therefore, young people will be well adjusted emotionally when their parents allow them to steer their own course in life based on their personal values (Soenens et al. 2007). In reverse, they will resist and rebel against imposed controls as these violate their need for personal autonomy (Porter 2007a, 2007b, 2008).

A rationale for collaboration Guided by both a parent-driven model and the research reported so far on the effects of parents’ involvement in their children’s schooling, three conclusions can be drawn about the reasons to collaborate with parents. The first is that parents employ you to educate their children and, therefore, you are accountable to them for your performance of this task. It is your job to collaborate with your employers. Not only is that common courtesy, but it reflects the true lines of accountability. Second, parents’ interest in – but not control of – their children’s schooling enhances students’ progress, especially at young ages and particularly for disadvantaged students (Dearing et al. 2006a). Even those parents with previous negative experiences or attitudes to education can come to endorse their child’s school when they have increased contact with their child’s teachers (Kohl et al. 2000). Therefore, you will need to invite and support their engagement. Third, when problems arise at school, parents are your best source of information about their child and how they have solved similar problems in the past. This third rationale for collaborating with parents in schools, then, is not that your relationships with them will inform, impel, encourage or even empower them to help you to teach their children – but simply that you need their advice and support to allow you to teach well.

Measures for supporting parents’ interest in their children’s education Comparing children who were similarly disadvantaged, one study found that those whose parents demonstrated interest in their schooling achieved 24 percentage points better on academic ability tests than similarly


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

16


disadvantaged young people whose parents were disengaged (Feinstein & Symons 1999). The clear conclusion from this finding is that, beyond the early childhood years, when early stimulation and responsive parenting teach the specific skills of self-regulation, benefits of parental engagement in schooling accrue when parents take an interest in their children’s academic progress. To support parental interest, schools require sustained administrative commitment to establishing proactive relationships with parents (Raffaele & Knoff 1999).

Collective efficacy In the increasingly interdependent profession that is modern teaching, all individuals within a school need a sense that as a whole it has the capacity to operate collectively to achieve its mission (Caprara et al. 2003). This capacity is referred to as ‘collective efficacy’, which is individuals’ belief in their capacity individually and as a group to influence their work circumstances and students’ learning and behaviour (Friedman 2003). A sense of collective efficacy contributes to a school’s prestige and is a potent source of teachers’ job satisfaction (Caprara et al. 2003). It requires strong leadership from the principal and a well-qualified teaching team who individually and collectively fulfil their role obligations (Caprara et al. 2003).

An inviting school climate The most crucial practical measure influencing parents’ involvement in their child’s schooling is their perception of the school’s receptivity to them (Christenson 2004; Overstreet et al. 2005; Raffaele & Knoff 1999). Teachers’ attitudes and collaborative practices have a considerable influence on parents’ level of school engagement (Kohl et al. 2000), with one study finding that school practices accounted for just over 22 per cent of the differences in parental participation rates between schools (Ho & Willms 1996). When teachers invite parents to the school, they are more likely to come (Simon 2001). Typically, however, parents’ contact with teachers declines progressively from children’s first year of school (Adams & Christenson 2000; Izzo et al. 1999; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta 1999). This is partly because older children are more reliable informants about events at school and therefore parents do not need to approach their children’s teachers directly for feedback about their daily activities, as is the case during the years prior to school. In addition, parents are attempting to give their older sons and daughters increasing independence. However, it also reflects diminishing invitations by the school. In one study, for example, 60 per cent of parents reported that their child’s school had not requested from them


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


17

information about their child, 65 per cent reported that they had not been given information about their child’s progress at school and 70 per cent had not been invited to volunteer at school (Spera 2005). At the first contact, schools can communicate in writing their intention to collaborate with parents. A statement of intent, such as illustrated in Box 1.1, could be posted at the school office or included in the package of documents given to parents at enrolment. Such statements, of course, would be meaningless and even damaging unless followed up by specific and practical efforts to engage parents.

Box 1.1: Sample statement of philosophy about parent engagement Dear parent Our school is honoured that you have entrusted us with your child’s education. While our teachers have considerable knowledge and skills about children and teaching, we are also eager to learn from your expertise and knowledge about your particular child, family and culture. We invite your voice, your perspective and your participation as an advocate for your child and family as well as for our community of students and families. Our school is fortunate to include a diverse group of families, students and staff whose range of life experiences enriches the entire school community and each one of us individually. We believe that every family deserves support in its efforts to raise healthy and skilled children, and we work to build and encourage this support among families, school staff and the larger community. Source: Keyser (2006, pp. 85–86)

Maintain high expectations for students While parents’ aspirations have a modest effect on their children’s educational outcomes (as already reported), the quality of schooling their children receive is actually more influential. School quality accounts for between 20 and 25 per cent of differences between schools in student outcomes, with family and neighbourhood factors explaining only 15 per cent and students’ qualities just 10 per cent of their educational attainment (Boyle et al. 2007; Mortimore et al. 1988; Osterman 2000; Rutter 1983; Rutter & Maughan 2002; Sylva 1994). The quality of each classroom may be even more influential than the quality of the school overall (Sylva 1994), if only because classrooms vary so much more than


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

18


do schools. Therefore, your students’ parents depend on you far more than you depend on them to equip their children to learn. A core influence on student attainment is teacher expectation. As is the case for parents, these in large part reflect the students’ actual abilities (Hauser-Cram et al. 2003). However, when teachers expect less of their students, they subsequently employ less effective teaching strategies that actually lower student achievement (Rubie-Davies 2007). In fact, teacher expectations are so potent that they can be only partially offset by parents’ higher ambitions for their children (Benner & Mistry 2007).

Promote teachers’ self-efficacy Like parents, teachers need to be able to translate their high expectations into behaviours that support student learning, for which they require a sense of personal and professional self-efficacy (that is, a sense that they can control student outcomes). Teachers with low professional efficacy are more likely to become overwhelmed by their work, stressed by disruptions (Martin, Linfoot & Stephenson 1999) and more concerned with promoting order than with meeting students’ needs. They experience less job satisfaction and perceive colleagues, students and parents more negatively (Caprara et al. 2003). In contrast, those with high self-efficacy not only become less stressed but, when faced with challenges, take action to resolve problems rather than avoiding them or venting emotion inappropriately (Friedman 2003). Confident of their ability to generate solutions, rather than feeling helpless, teachers with high self-efficacy exhibit high levels of planning and organisation, are open to new ideas and willing to experiment with new approaches, implement varied programs, modify tasks to attract students’ engagement, create a supportive climate to maintain student involvement and foster mastery and students’ personal progress, rather than encouraging students to outperform each other (Caprara et al. 2006; Tollefson 2000; Wolters & Daugherty 2007). They are also more willing to collaborate with parents (Caprara et al. 2003). This is because, although few teachers receive any specific training for collaborating with parents, those who are confident of their expertise as teachers tend to be more open to collaboration, in all likelihood because they feel less threatened about having others scrutinise their work (Abbott-Shim, Lambert & McCarty 2000; Castro et al. 2004; Ghazvini & Readdick 1994).

Communicate regularly Mutual trust between parents and educators cannot develop in a vacuum, and is even more difficult to establish during crises, when emotions are


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


19

likely to be running high. Instead, you must engender parents’ trust through frequent, ongoing, everyday responsive communication with them (Adams & Christenson 2000). There are many occasions when you can exchange information with parents, including orientation visits before their child starts at the school or in a new classroom; during everyday informal contacts; in brochures about the school’s policies and procedures; at meetings to review students’ progress; in newsletters; on bulletin boards; by asking parents about their priorities for their child’s education; and writing a letter to parents and students at the beginning of the school year to introduce yourself, your philosophy about education, the curriculum at that grade level and your aims for the year. As the year progresses, personal contact with parents over positive events at school is a powerful communication both for them and for students (Miller 2003; Miller, Ferguson & Moore 2002). Regular communication with parents about classroom learning activities, their child’s progress and ideas for supporting their child academically contribute to students’ intrinsic motivation (Gonzalez-DeHass et al. 2005) and can cement cooperation between parents and teachers by helping familiarise them with each other (Raffaele & Knoff 1999). With very young children in early childhood centres, parents want daily feedback so that they can vicariously experience their child’s day, discuss with their child his or her activities and, perhaps, follow these up at home for continuity (Elliott 2003). By school age, parents seldom need such a high frequency of communication, although those whose children have learning difficulties require more than school reports at the end of term, instead needing weekly updates (Bennett, Lee & Lueke 1998).

Foster parents’ self-efficacy Parents’ self-efficacy – their belief in their own capacity to influence their child’s schooling – is crucial for them to be willing to become involved (Coots 1998; Deslandes et al. 1999; Pelletier & Brent 2002; Seefeldt et al. 1999). Parents with high self-efficacy will be able to harness the family’s internal resources and secure any necessary support from outside the family in order to promote their children’s achievements (Thompson et al. 1997). They provide support in ways that contribute to their children’s academic self-efficacy and, in turn, their educational success (Seefeldt et al. 1999). As well as improving children’s outcomes, parents’ sense of self-control increases their satisfaction with their relationships with their children’s teachers (Turnbull et al. 2006). In contrast, parents with low self-efficacy will doubt their ability to solve their children’s problems or to influence their educational outcomes, even if they were to become involved (Grolnick et al. 1997). This can be


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

20


particularly the case for parents of high school students with disabilities (Deslandes et al. 1999), parents who have little education themselves (Seefeldt et al. 1999) and parents who present with depression, which signals that they feel unable to influence their circumstances (Reyno & McGrath 2006). Parents’ self-efficacy combines with their values about education and beliefs about teachers’ and parents’ respective roles to produce four styles of interaction in schools, as given in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Effects of parents’ self-efficacy on their style of involvement in schools Low self-efficacy

High self-efficacy

Negative view of education in general or of current school provisions

Resistant Withdrawn Isolated

Public complaints Destructive criticism

Positive view of education

Emotionally supportive of children High educational aspirations

High involvement, e.g.: • attending meetings • audience at school • assistance with schoolwork • guiding students’ educational or career plans • child advocacy

Source: adapted from Raffaele & Knoff (1999, p. 455)

Although you are not responsible for parents’ personal self-efficacy, you can create an environment for it to flourish in parents’ interactions with you (Keyser 2006). Two key measures are to convey your respect for their role as leaders in their family and to give them relevant information that will enable them to have control over decisions about their child’s education.

Provide information In order for parents to translate their high educational aspirations into behaviours that support their children’s learning both indirectly at home and directly at school (as relevant), they need high-quality information (Coots 1998; Halle et al. 1997; Hill & Taylor 2004). In order to give parents the confidence to become involved, the information you provide must be responsive to their needs, rather than imparting information that you want to convey (Elliott 2003); be accurate and comprehensive so that parents can make informed decisions (Osher & Osher 2002); and be accessible to parents. On this last aspect, some may be comfortable receiving knowledge from books and articles, which you can amass in a parent resource library, while others may prefer verbal communication (Jacobson & Engelbrecht 2000).


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM


21

One group with particular information needs are parents of young children. First-time parents often request information to help them understand their child (Elliott 2003) and guide them to parent responsively. Topics of particular interest may include building children’s self-esteem, helping them to have good relationships, using effective discipline and developing appropriate expectations of children at different ages (Jacobson & Engelbrecht 2000). By the middle school years, parents may need information about curricula and how they can guide their children’s learning at home; by the time young people are nearing the end of schooling, their parents often benefit from information about school subject choices, employment options and university admission criteria. One group that may need specific information about how to support children’s learning are those parents with little education themselves (Pelletier & Brent 2002). Even when these parents have high educational aspirations for their sons and daughters, the young people’s actual academic achievements may not improve, perhaps because their parents are not able to assist them with academic learning (Hill et al. 2004). Therefore, disadvantaged parents may need practical information about how they can support their children’s attainments.

Outreach In contrast to the critical and distancing attitudes towards parents characterised by the professional-driven or family-allied models, within a family-driven model, schools reach out to parents to support them. Some practical measures include establishing a lending library to help disadvantaged parents who lack the resources to purchase books, which can cause a decline in their children’s literacy skills, on which all other learning relies (Halle et al. 1997). Schools can also be a hub of family and community services, these being determined in response to surveyed parent needs. This will not necessarily entail attracting more resources but may include the provision of a parents’ lounge or drop-in centre to promote informal contacts between parents; structured parent support groups; or bringing in community health specialists to deliver some services at the school so that their efforts and the school’s can be coordinated (Raffaele & Knoff 1999). Such activities can accustom parents to attending their child’s school, on which further contact can be built.

Conclusion The scarcity of family-centred practices, even in those children’s services that aspire to them, attests to the lack of utility of this approach. Under this and the other two models that give professionals ultimate power,


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

22


the paradox is that, if as a teacher you attempt to use that power, you will lose influence over both your parent group and your students. When parents do not comply with the solutions imposed on them, the resulting despondency and failure will disempower all of you. Instead, when problems arise, the respect inherent in a parent-driven stance allows you to recruit parents’ advice and harness their expertise at solving problems for their own family and its members. This will increase the likelihood of finding workable solutions that parents are willing to enact. Given that increases in parental involvement produce improvements in children’s academic skills, particularly in those most at risk of academic failure (Dearing et al. 2006a), a parent-driven approach has the best chance of achieving what you and your parent group both want: engaged and successful students.


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

2

Honouring diversity

All people want to be treated with respect, want to be valued and accepted, loved, and cherished, and made to feel they are making important contributions to society and that their wishes and desires are heard and respected. Berg & Steiner (2003, p. 9)

Families differ on many dimensions, encapsulated by the acronym addressing: age and generational differences, development, disability, religion or spirituality, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, indigenous heritage, national origin and gender (Clay 2007). Sometimes, our relationships in schools are tainted by societal stereotypes and prejudice against parents who differ from us on these dimensions. There is a belief that some contemporary family structures compromise parents’ ability to raise well-adjusted children. However, this chapter reports that it is parenting processes that affect children’s adjustment, not the type of families in which children are reared (Papero 2005).

Family composition and size One myth is that families today lack the supports of their extended family network because the generations no longer live together as they once did. However, the truth is that, certainly in Western cultures, extended family members have never lived together, due to the short life expectancy, which meant that grandparents had died before their own children had finished childbearing. Despite the mythology that was popularised in British literature, households there have been stable in size over the past 400 years (Bottomley 1983). Between 1574 and 1821, only 11 per cent of British households included extended kin of any kind (Waters & Crook 1993). Thus, other than in aristocratic classes, most Western households have always been basically nuclear in composition. Today, increased 23


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

24


longevity means that members of older generations are still alive and, while they may not be geographically close to their families, communication technologies and fast transportation enable extended family members to be emotionally supportive (Waters & Crook 1993). There is a distinction, then, between extended households and extended kinship, which is now more available than ever, particularly during family crises. A second aspect of family size is the number of children. Australian women are having slightly fewer children now than in the past, but only marginally so. As can be seen in Table 2.1, women born in the 1860s had larger families, but once birth control became practised in the early 1900s, the birth rate dropped from its previously high level. There was a slight rise in births to women born in the 1930s, when women were marrying younger. The relatively recent decrease in births is due mainly to the trend towards a longer gap between marriage and the birth of the first child (Waters & Crook 1993). Table 2.1: Number of births to cohorts of Australian women Women born

Number of children

1861–1866

5.1

1903–1908

2.6

1928–1938

3.2

1940s

2.9

1960s

2.2

1999

1.7 Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006; McDonald 1993; Waters and Crook 1993

Working parents In 1996, in two-parent families with the youngest child aged under five, 49 per cent of mothers were in paid employment (predominantly part-time); with children aged 10–14 years, 71 per cent of mothers worked outside of home (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). This represents increased workforce participation for women. A second trend is that the combined working hours of parents has increased, as individual employees are working longer hours. Nevertheless, having two working parents has a strong precedent in history when, prior to child labour laws and the introduction of universal education at the beginning of the 20th century, working class women (and their children) always worked. Even once women were relegated to home duties, most were never wealthy enough to have the choice between domestic and non-domestic labour: they always had to do both (Bottomley 1983), while women of all classes in Australia participated at high rates in the work


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

Honouring diversity

25

force during war years and times of economic depression. Indeed, the concept that mothers should remain at home full-time dates from the 1950s and thus is both a recent idea and a departure from the pattern of previous eras. Having two working parents – or an employed sole parent – improves adolescents’ health and wellbeing (Weston 1993). Mothers’ participation in the work force during their children’s early years is beneficial for children’s development, especially in families on a low income. This is because paid employment can assist the family to meet the costs of children’s developmental needs (Harvey 1999). Employed women sacrifice time on household, leisure and social activities to devote proportionally more time to their children. Working mothers spend between 66 and 84 per cent of the time spent by mothers who are home full-time with their children, and this difference produces no ill effects in the children’s skills (Huston & Aronson 2005). Similarly, during young people’s secondary schooling, working mothers devote barely any less time to them than do mothers who are home full-time, with no discernible effects on their adolescents’ school achievements (Feinstein & Symons 1999). Thus, the amount of time that mothers spend with their children is unrelated to their development (Huston & Aronson 2005). Rather, it is mothers’ investment in parenting and thus how they allocate the time available to them that predicts the quality of care that they provide their children (Huston & Aronson 2005). The effects on children of having both parents in paid employment depend on the parents’ working circumstances. Once impoverished parents gain employment they are better adjusted (as evidenced by less depression) and therefore use less coercive parenting (Dearing, McCartney & Taylor 2006b; Raver 2003), while their children (girls in particular) are less aggressive, more independent and achieve better at school (Fuller et al. 2002). Parents’ and children’s adjustment improves when mothers’ employment pays well enough to raise them out of poverty (Dearing et al. 2006b; Fuller et al. 2002); when returning to work does not involve stressful or prolonged commuting (Dunifon, Kalil & Bajracharya 2005); lead to inadequate monitoring of the children (Macmillan, McMorris & Kruttschnitt 2004); impose full-time work during children’s first year (Hill et al. 2005); or result in low-quality or unstable child-care arrangements (Papero 2005; Youngblade 2003).

Child care Since 1990, around half of Australia’s children aged under 12 years attend child care, which is double the rate of previous decades (ABS 2006). Concern about children’s enrolment in centre-based child care is most often framed in terms of its threat to their ‘attachment’ to parents. However, this theory itself has very weak evidential support. Bowlby’s original concept that human


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

26


babies needed intensive care exclusively from a single caregiver is false. Unlike other species, human infants develop affection for many people, such as extended family members, even when they spend little time in their company (Verschueren & Marcoen 1999; Waters & Cummings 2000). Moreover, children’s attachment to their parents does not, as the theory predicts, determine their subsequent emotional wellbeing. Instead, children’s attachment to parents and their emotional wellbeing at the time both depend on the quality of parenting they receive. When parents’ sensitivity improves, so too does the children’s wellbeing (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg 2004; Diener, Nievar & Wright 2003; Hamilton 2000; Koren-Karie et al. 2002; Lewis, Feiring & Rosenthal 2000; Moss et al. 2005; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network 2001b, 2006; Posada et al. 1999; Raval et al. 2001; Seifer et al. 2004; Waters, Hamilton & Weinfield 2000a; Waters et al. 2000b; Weinfield, Sroufe & Egeland 2000). In other words, it is parenting quality that governs children’s wellbeing, not the quality of children’s ‘attachment’ to their parents. Evidence about the effects of child care support the proposition that it can benefit rather than harm children’s development, particularly for children from deprived home circumstances (Geoffroy et al. 2007). Those attending high-quality centres show improved overall cognitive, language and literacy skills as toddlers and preschool-aged children, contributing in turn to their adaptive functioning in the early years of school (Burchinal & Cryer 2003; Burchinal et al. 1996, 2000; Clarke-Stewart et al. 2002; Fantuzzo et al. 2005; Gilliam & Zigler 2000; Gormley et al. 2005; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2000, 2003b; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan 2003; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal 1997; Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001; Phillips, McCartney & Scarr 1987; Rubenstein, Howes & Boyle 1981; Sundell 2000; Sylva et al. 2006; Zaslow et al. 1998). They are more sociable, have higher self-esteem, are more assertive, less likely to initiate conflict with peers, and are less aggressive than children with little or no centre-based care experience (Andersson 1989, 1992; Field 1991; Field et al. 1988; Howes 1990; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2001a; O’Brien et al. 1999; Phillips et al. 1987; Schwarz, Krolick & Strickland 1973; Vandell, Henderson & Wilson 1988). When followed up with responsive educational programs, these gains are maintained through the school years (Andersson 1989, 1992; Reynolds, Ou & Topitzes 2004), with the benefits particularly pronounced for children experiencing environmental risks (Hubbs-Tait et al. 2002; Love et al. 2003; Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). These results show that we do not have to despair about children who attend child care in their early years, even when they do so for a considerable proportion of their day. Our only concern needs to be that


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

Honouring diversity

27

not all child care is of high quality, and that those parents with the least flexibility in their working lives tend to be least able to be highly selective about the quality of the centre in which they enrol their child. Their choice tends to be dictated by cost, location and opening hours, rather than by the quality of care and education made available to their children (Early & Burchinal 2001; Peyton et al. 2001).

Divorce The doomsday scenario is that high rates of divorce will result in the demise of the family altogether. However, divorce dissolves marriages: it does not dissolve families. The present divorce rate does not indicate a decline in the importance of marriage, but a continued commitment to monogamy, albeit in a serial form. Despite the divorce rate, marriages last longer today than ever before. This somewhat surprising state of affairs comes about because spouses now live longer, as shown in Table 2.2. On its own, this table tells us little, but when we add the rate of divorce at the beginning of the 20th century (1 per cent) and informal separations (thought to be around 10 per cent) to the death rates of the times, the percentage of Australian marriages that endure for 30 years is higher now than 100 years ago, as shown in Table 2.3. Thus, the two-parent family remains the dominant family type. While 40 per cent of all marriages end in divorce, the reverse statistic is that up to 60 per cent of people will stay married to the same person until one partner dies (ABS 2006). Table 2.2: Percentage of marriages with both partners still alive 1891

1991

After 30 years

46%

88%

After 45 years

15%

56% Source: McDonald 1993

Table 2.3: Percentage of marriages with both partners still alive and together

After 30 years

1891

1991

2000

41%

53%

60%

Source: ABS 2006; McDonald 1993

The duration of marriages that end in divorce is also increasing marginally, with couples in 2003 separating after 8.7 years of marriage, compared with 7.6 years a decade earlier (ABS 2006). The longer gap between marriage and child bearing means that divorce is increasingly likely to occur before


15/1/08 11:47:35 AM

28


children are born. Nevertheless, just over half of Australian divorces are to couples with dependent children (Amato 2000; Harrison 1993). The number of children whose parents divorce goes up by about one per cent per year of the children’s age, with the result that by 18 years of age, 18 per cent of all children will experience their parents’ divorce (Harrison 1993; McDonald 1993). We could rue these figures, but their converse is that over three quarters of children live most of their childhood with both biological parents. Separation and divorce threaten individuals’ sense of belonging, which is an innate human need (Sheldon et al. 2001). Therefore, we can expect some short- and longer-term effects on both parents and their children in the years of estrangement that can precede separation, during the divorce process itself and for some time subsequently. Although persistent family conflict is harmful to children and separation can provide relief from that tension, parental separation still produces at the time small increases in the emotional and behavioural problems of young children in particular (Cheng et al. 2006). In the years prior to a divorce and in its immediate aftermath, there can be an exacerbation of social, emotional, behavioural and academic problems in young people, particularly when they have preexisting vulnerabilities (Amato 2000). A separation or divorce can set in train a series of additional losses, such as moving house, school or neighbourhood, changes in parents’ employment status and children’s care and schooling arrangements, financial hardship and subsequent re-partnering of one or both parents. These changes add to the adjustments that children need to make to the separation itself. On the other hand, divorce allows couples and their children to leave violent or unsupportive relationships. Young people growing up in these households experience more stress and disillusionment with relationships than those who grow up in single-parent families with a parent who is less stressed (Amato 2000; Burns & Goodnow 1985). In the long term, divorce of their parents prior to age 16 lowers young people’s educational attainment (although this could reflect a reduction in family income, which means that the family has insufficient resources to support the children’s continued education), earlier onset of emotional difficulties and earlier sexual debut, tobacco and alcohol use (D’Onofrio et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the differences in adjustment between children of divorced and intact families are small (Amato 2000). Whether in the longer-term (within two to three years), children return to their predivorce levels of adjustment depends on: •

how the children view their parents’ divorce: approximately one third believe it is their fault, while others are relieved to see an end to their parents’ misery and their own victimhood, particularly in violent families


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

• • • • • • • •

29

the children's ability to use active coping in contrast with avoidance or distraction their sense of control over events the level of social support they receive whether economic hardships (particularly experienced by women) endure and later restrict the children’s opportunities the quality or responsiveness of parenting the children receive whether the parents’ conflict is resolved by their separation parents’ subsequent emotional adjustment whether the children can maintain high-quality contact with the non-residential parent (Amato 2000; Dunn 2004; Dunn et al. 2004; Spence et al. 2002).

It seems that when children experience persistent emotional difficulties following their parents’ divorce, they would have developed these problems anyway for reasons unrelated to their parents’ disharmony (D’Onofrio et al. 2007), or their antisocial behaviour is due not to their parents’ separation itself, but to the acrimony, parenting problems and socioeconomic difficulties that preceded and contributed to the divorce (Amato 2000; D’Onofrio et al. 2007).

Single parenthood From 1986 to 1996 in Australia, the proportion of one-parent families with dependent children rose from 15 to 19 per cent (ABS 2006). The vast majority of these families (87 per cent) were headed by women. Three quarters of single-parent households result from dissolution of marriage between the two parents, with the remaining quarter typically being due to the ending of a de facto relationship. Just 12 per cent of lone mothers are aged under 24 years (ABS 2006). Mother-headed households have been a significant feature of many societies and classes over time, including in those societies in which the nuclear family has been idealised (Bottomley 1983). In the United States, 28 to 34 per cent of White children born between 1920 and 1960 lived with one or no biological parent; the figure for the same period for African–Americans was 55 to 60 per cent (Hanson & Carta 1995). In Australia, mother-headed households have been commonplace for almost all of White settlement (see Table 2.4, page 30) as fathers went to the gold fields, fought in a series of wars and sought work away from home during times of economic recession. It was only in the 1950s that two-parent, single-income families became the norm. Outside of that era, the mothers who remained at home managed to rear their children successfully; they can still do so today. Even so, single parenthood can be stressful for the adults (Williford, Calkins & Keane 2007), can potentially reduce parental supervision and


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

30


Table 2.4: Percentage of Australian sole-parent families with dependent children 1991

16.6%

1974

9.2%

1891

16.7% Source: McDonald 1993

support for the children and may not allow for one parent to act as a check on the other’s overly lax or controlling discipline (Sandefur & Wells 1999). Nevertheless, some research reports that any deleterious effects are due not to being raised by a single parent as such, but by three factors often accompanying single parenthood. The first and most fundamental of these is poverty. Women earn less than men overall and, during marriage, are employed for fewer hours and thus achieve promotions less than men do; therefore upon separation, mother-headed households are more likely to be in the lowest income bracket, to rent rather than own their accommodation, to live with another family to share expenses and to have limited access to private transport (McDonald 1993). Single mothers find it harder to work and raise young children alone, with 36 per cent of lone mothers with children aged under five working in paid employment, compared to 49 per cent of partnered mothers. Sole-parent families are particularly likely to be destitute if their family finances were strained before the separation. The second effect is that sole-parent families are often the result of parental conflict. However, when the separation ends the conflict, the children are less stressed than when their family is intact but there is ongoing disharmony between their parents (Burns & Goodnow 1985; Dearing et al. 2006b). The third characteristic that can reduce children’s adjustment as a result of being raised in a sole-parent family is when the residential parent experiences a series of disharmonious romantic partnerships. Children raised by stably single parents are as well adjusted as those in two-parent, contented families (Spence et al. 2002). However, children can be stressed by a series of structural changes in the family that occur when their parent endures a sequence of unsuccessful relationships (Haveman & Wolfe 1995; Sandefur & Wells 1999). Single parenthood need not produce poor outcomes in children, however, with some studies finding no deleterious effects on young children’s academic skills (Downer & Pianta 2006) and others finding only marginal reductions in the duration of their schooling (Sandefur & Wells 1999). Single parenthood does not diminish parents’ interest in their children’s schooling and indirect support at home, although it can limit their presence at school (Kohl et al. 2000). In terms of young people’s emotional adjustment, many in sole-parent families report that they enjoy a particularly close relationship


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

31

with their parent (Golombok et al. 2003; MacCallum & Golombok 2004; Weston 1993). The reduced conflict in these families and possibly increased social support from extended family and friends account for the fact that children are better adjusted in sole-parent families than in conflicted twoparent families (Dearing et al. 2006b). Children with antisocial fathers are better adjusted when their father is not present in the family (Jaffee et al. 2003), while the absence of a parent who took no interest in their children’s education makes no difference to young people’s eventual secondary school attainment (Feinstein & Symons 1999).

Young mothers It has been assumed that the immaturity of teenaged parents means that they are less able to nurture their children (Bornstein et al. 2006; Gowen & Nebrig 2002). However, although young mothers may offer less cognitive stimulation for their infants, in reasonably supportive families they are as nurturing as older mothers (Bornstein et al. 2006; McGroder 2000). At any age, mothers will be less responsive in their parenting when enduring poverty, family disruption, unemployment or partner abuse, and when they have a history of abuse or neglect in their own childhood (Ellis et al. 2003; Fergusson & Woodward 2000; Jenkins, Shapka & Sorenson 2006; Moffitt & the E-Risk Study Team 2002; Turley 2003). These adverse circumstances increase their children’s propensity for childhood illness and injury, behavioural problems including adolescent delinquency, teen parenthood and poor academic achievement (Moffitt & the E-Risk Study Team 2002; Turley 2003). The children start school at lower levels of functioning and remain behind their age peers throughout the school years (Turley 2003). The net result can be that children of these parents leave school earlier (three-quarters of a year sooner) than those in more advantaged families (Boyle et al. 2007). These outcomes are due to family adversity, however, not to the age of the mother. This is verified by two facts; first, that babies born to these mothers later in life are as disadvantaged as those born to them in their teens (Turley 2003). Second, even when they have their own children at the typical childbearing age, the sisters of teen mothers have equally disadvantaged children (Turley 2003).

Lesbian mothers In one study, one in five lesbian women had or lived with children (Millbank 2002, in Semann 2004). Whereas it was once assumed that this would affect the children’s gender identity, it is now clear that children raised by lesbian mothers have similar romantic relationships and sexual orientation to all


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

32


other young people (Golombok et al. 2003; MacCallum & Golombok 2004; Wainright, Russell & Patterson 2004). Having lesbian parents seems to produce in children greater awareness of discrimination and more accepting attitudes about nonconformity to gender roles (Wainright et al. 2004). Findings on other measures fail to distinguish between children raised by lesbian versus heterosexual mothers (Wainright et al. 2004). Both groups of children have similar self-esteem, personal adjustment, academic achievement and neighbourhood integration. One fear has been that the children would be subjected to more peer harassment because of heterosexist discrimination against their gay or lesbian parent. However, young people have not reported this, although on their children’s behalf their mothers report a slightly increased incidence (Golombok et al. 2003). This leaves one remaining potential concern for children growing up with two female parents – that is, the absence of a father figure. This fear is also unfounded: regardless of whether their mother is homosexual or heterosexual, boys in fatherless families display slightly more feminine but no less masculine behaviour (MacCallum & Golombok 2004). They experience a similar quality of parenting, with lesbian and co-mothers more likely to use egalitarian discipline and more equally sharing child care and household duties than occurs in heterosexual families (Bos, van Balen & van den Boom 2004; Golombok et al. 2003; MacCallum & Golombok 2004; Wainright et al. 2004). When their mothers have a partner, children of lesbian parents can experience warmer care from their social mother than from their biological father (Golombok et al. 2003). The only disadvantage of being raised by lesbian parents is that, regardless of their sexual orientation, sole parents can be more stressed and more likely to be impoverished (Golombok et al. 2003; MacCallum & Golombok 2004). In that case, it is the poverty, not the parents’ sexual orientation that affects their children.

Stepfamilies Stepfamilies are as common today as in the 16th and 17th centuries (Whelan & Kelly 1986), although today they typically succeed parental divorce rather than the death of a parent, making the children’s adjustment somewhat different. When working with a newly formed stepfamily, it would be a mistake to assume that it is like any biological family, dealing with the usual challenges of the life stage suggested by the ages of the children. The fact that the marriage is new determines the demands on the family. Stepfamilies need different operating principles than nuclear families, because they are performing many roles at once, with responsibilities spread across their present and former families, and are negotiating complex relationships


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

33

among all family members. The elevated divorce rate in second and subsequent marriages attests to the difficulty of achieving all this. At the time that their parent forms a new couple relationship, you might see at school a resurgence of the behavioural difficulties that children displayed at the time of their parents’ original separation. Their grief can be renewed not only because the re-partnering signals the finality of their parents’ separation, but because it can lead to fewer contacts with their non-residential biological parent. In addition, their parent’s closeness with a new partner can be seen by children as a rejection of themselves, especially when it does in fact lead to less one-on-one time with their parent. These behavioural and emotional reactions can persist because at home, where the same phenomenon is being experienced, the children’s reactions raise unfamiliar parenting issues. In terms of educational outcomes for children, there is some evidence that being part of a stepfamily has the same effects as being in a singleparent family – namely, a marginal reduction (measured in months) in the duration of children’s schooling (Sandefur & Wells 1999). This is probably a result of the stress from the original separation and from changes in family structures, rather than to any qualities inherent in stepfamilies as such.

Intermittent parental absence Children can display grief and unsettled behaviour when one of their parents departs to work away from home for extended periods. Some parents attempt to distract them by asking them to look after their mother while their father is away (as though women are so incompetent that they need a child to look after them). However, this responsibility is inappropriate. Children need their remaining parent to be the family leader and will cope when he or she does so. Nevertheless, the reason for the absence makes a difference. For example, boys whose fathers are imprisoned display more antisocial behaviours throughout their life than those whose fathers die, leave as a result of parental conflict or for hospitalisation, or were imprisoned before their birth (Murray & Farrington 2005). The effects on children are not due either to parents’ criminality or to the separation itself, but also to the stigma, loss of family income, potentially reduced quality of care, inadequate explanation being given to the children and copying their parents’ criminal behaviour (Murray & Farrington 2005).

Grandparent guardians A recent phenomenon is the increasing prevalence of grandparents raising their grandchildren. Grandparents typically take on the care of their


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

34


grandchildren suddenly, after a family trauma such as parental death, the breakdown of the parenting couple’s relationship, or as a result of mental illness, alcohol or drug addiction or parental incarceration. Obviously, grandparents are older than parents, with 39 per cent aged 35–54 years and the majority (61 per cent) being aged over 55. The grandchildren are typically older as well, with just 15 per cent being aged under five (ABS 2006). Most grandparents have just one or two children in their care, although some (around 11 per cent as of 2003) have three or more children for whom they are responsible. They usually have fewer financial resources and less physical stamina to devote to this task, with half doing so without a spouse. Moreover, some of the reasons for their care of their grandchildren result in developmental delays or disabilities in the children – such as parental alcohol addiction causing fetal alcohol syndrome (McCallion, Janicki & Kolomer 2004). Thus, these children can be traumatised by the events in their family as well as having additional educational and behavioural difficulties. Consequently, teachers report them to have elevated rates of academic, emotional and behavioural difficulties (Edwards 2006). While this is also true of foster children, grandparents typically have less preparation for the role of substitute carer and they can feel partly culpable for raising a son or daughter who neglected or abandoned his or her own child. The grandparents’ role is complex, with day-to-day care of their grandchildren ensnaring them in a situation in which they must act as a parent when the grandchildren may expect them to act ‘grandparentally’ (Kornhaber 2002). Those who are elderly worry about what will happen to their grandchildren if they die or become incapacitated. The grandparents’ own health and degree of choice in the matter will have a great deal of influence on whether they see their caretaking as a source of a new zest for life or an encumbrance to be resented. Whatever their personal reactions, they will need the support of a range of social services – financial, respite care, schooling, health care and support groups – not least because they may lose touch with their informal network. This can come about because few people of their age will be having similar life experiences to themselves and because their grandchildren’s difficulties can make attending social functions difficult (McCallion et al. 2004).

Families from minority cultures The term ‘culture’ encompasses demographic characteristics such as race, gender, country of origin, language and socioeconomic status, as well as less explicit features such as individuals’ beliefs, values and attitudes (Sheridan 2000). It also refers to the norms and customs of institutions such


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

35

as schools. The challenges that families face because they observe different norms and customs from the dominant culture are compounded by the social discrimination they experience, which results in minority cultural groups disproportionately experiencing economic disadvantage. While race marks people for discrimination, marginalisation and socioeconomic inequalities are about politics as much as they are about race (Dennis & Giangreco 1996). This is evidenced by the fact that, while English language proficiency limits the social mobility of the first and perhaps second generation of immigrants, achieving proficiency in English does not necessarily guarantee social mobility (Reis & McCoach 2000). This tells us that discrimination is also an issue. Parents from all cultural groups hold high educational aspirations for their children. They may be educationally involved in different ways and to different degrees, with their levels of aspirations and parent–teacher communication varying (Hong & Ho 2005) but, on the whole, across cultures parents’ emotional support for their children’s education is similar and seems to be equally beneficial in terms of their children’s school grades (Ho & Willms 1996; Jodl et al. 2001; Keith et al. 1998). Lack of communication with parents with little English will deny you vital information about their child, while limiting how much information they can receive from you. Even those who can use everyday language might have difficulty comprehending more technical educational terms (Rosin 1996; Salend & Taylor 1993). Even without language barriers, some immigrant parents can distrust authority figures or may have experienced the intrusion of social services and therefore will be reluctant to disclose personal information to you (Dennis & Giangreco 1996).

Engaging diverse families Depending on their socioeconomic or cultural background, some parents may be unfamiliar with the concept of advocacy or direct parental involvement at school, and may believe that they have to acquiesce to your opinion out of deference to your status as an authority figure (Haboush 2007; Zhang & Bennett 2003).

Inclusive curricula Inclusive day-to-day practices within your classroom will communicate more effectively than any other means that you honour diversity. Particularly in the face of the traditional silencing of minorities, when you are a member of the majority culture, you will need to listen to students, their families and members of other cultures to find out how to make learning culturally and socially meaningful and relevant for


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

36


these students (Ford & Trotman 2001). Among other measures, this will entail prohibiting gender, racial or heterosexist discrimination within your classroom and school and respecting students’ use of dialects and their home languages (Ford 2003; Ford & Harris 2000; Ford et al. 2000; Harmon 2002). Meanwhile, an anti-bias curriculum must not perpetuate stereotypes through a ‘tourist curriculum’ that focuses on other cultures’ exotic customs (Derman-Sparks & the A.B.C Task Force 1989), but must recognise how the various cultural groups that make up a society have contributed to how it has been shaped as a collective (Ford 2003; Ford & Harris 2000; Ford et al. 2000).

Cultural competence Adopting a ‘colour-blind’ stance that other people’s culture is irrelevant would disrespect its deep significance to them, ignore differences and entrench oppression by failing to question it (Chan 2006). On the other hand, stereotyping people on the basis of their culture would disrespect their individuality (Ramirez et al. 1998). Instead, we need to develop cultural awareness. As an analogy for this, Barrera and Corso (2002) describe a building with two rooms. Cultural imperialism declares that the one room I occupy is the only one that exists or matters; dualism recognises that there are two separate rooms but their two occupants cannot communicate unless one or both moves; the concept of a ‘third space’ upholds that it is the wall that keeps us from occupying a shared space. The wall obstructs our view of the other; therefore, if we can remove the obstruction, we can acknowledge, respect and integrate our diverse perspectives. Cultural literacy begins with developing awareness of our own cultural biases (Lynch 2004; Ramirez et al. 1998). Professional development, multicultural experiences, reading about other cultures and forming personal and professional contacts with individuals who bridge cultures can help you as a member of the dominant culture to become aware of its implicit assumptions, biases and values, being sensitive to the fact that these are not universally shared (Lynch 2004; Lynch & Hanson 1996). While cultural differences are inevitable, it is not difference but our interpretation of it that creates conflict across cultures (Chan 2006). Thus, while cultural awareness asks us to question, ‘What do I believe?’, the next step of clarifying values expands this reflection to query, ‘What meaning am I attaching to the other person’s actions?’ (Barrera & Corso 2002). As will be mentioned in chapter 3, respect does not mean that we have to accept others’ values (cultural or otherwise), but merely recognise that they believe that their perceptions are the proper and logical way to understand and respond to their circumstances.


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

37

A next measure to enhance cross-cultural collaboration is developing awareness of other cultural perspectives, including a political awareness of the oppression by the dominant culture of minorities (Ingraham 2000; Ramirez et al. 1998). While it will never be possible to walk in another person’s shoes and understand how others experience the social oppression that often accompanies their cultural membership, cross-cultural empathy can be informed by an awareness of the distinction between voluntary and involuntary minority groups. Some families migrate voluntarily to a country in search of more opportunities (although, even then I doubt that they could have anticipated the hardships and discrimination they would endure in the process). Despite having chosen to emigrate and thus surmount the challenges, when they confront educational dilemmas about their child, their immigrant status can disenfranchise these parents, as they are more likely to be living in poverty, may have low proficiency in English and may have less support from social services (Lai & Ishiyama 2004; Salend & Taylor 1993). The fact that recent immigrants were educated elsewhere and thus do not know the local education system can lead to their reluctance to engage with educators or join parent groups, which results in their being particularly isolated (Marion 1980). In contrast, involuntary minorities were brought to a country against their will (e.g. African–Americans) or were invaded (as with Native Americans, Australian Aborigines and the New Zealand Maori peoples) (Borland & Wright 2000). The history of oppression and ongoing negative contact between involuntary minorities and the dominant culture generate repeated disadvantage that can give rise to oppositional coping mechanisms, including a resistance to ‘acting White’ via school success (Borland & Wright 2000). For these groups, school learning is perceived not as adding to their lives but as detracting from their own cultural values, traditions and attitudes (Townsend-Cross 2004), while effort during the school years is less likely to be rewarded in their working life because discrimination limits their social mobility. This points to the need to promote pluralism (in contrast with assimilationism) so that children from minority cultures feel that they can preserve their own cultural heritage at the same time as acquiring the knowledge and skills that are necessary for success in the majority culture (Maker & Schiever 1989).

Use of translators For parents with limited proficiency in English, it can be essential to locate a translator for formal conversations, or to invite a community volunteer to accompany them on a regular basis at drop-off or collection times so that you can pass on to parents day-to-day information about their child’s experiences and, in so doing, build a trusting relationship with them.


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

38


When using an interpreter in formal meetings, provide the translator ahead of time with copies of any documents that will be discussed at the meeting. It is wise to avoid using the parents’ son or daughter as a translator as that burdens a child with inappropriate responsibility, while the use of translators who are children or family friends can lead to parental discomfort at the translator’s exposure to private information (Lynch 2004; Lynch & Hanson 1996; Salend & Taylor 1993).

Formal meetings In advance of formal meetings with parents from an unfamiliar minority culture, endeavour to learn from a ‘cultural interpreter’ about protocols and social interaction norms within the family’s community (Dennis & Giangreco 1996). In terms of who should attend the meeting, even if the parents do not require an interpreter, they may still wish to invite a cultural advocate to the meeting. This person may be a member of their own community or extended family, or a member of the school staff who shares their cultural background. The parents have to be the ones to make the choice of inviting an interpreter or cultural advocate, because in some cultures the presence of an outsider would be experienced as supportive, whereas in others it would cause parents to lose face. If they choose to see you without a cultural advocate or none is available, you can check with them if, despite your cultural differences, they are nevertheless willing to discuss with you the issues about their son or daughter. A second consideration about who should attend the meeting is that if it grows too large in numbers, parents can feel intimidated. This is true for any parent; in certain minority cultures it can make family shame public. In that case, it would be wise to limit the numbers of professionals who attend (Dennis & Giangreco 1996). On the other hand, when collaborating with parents from a patriarchal culture, they may feel more comfortable if there is a male teacher or other male professional at the meeting (Haboush 2007). Given some cultures’ perspective that their children’s difficulties are a threat to family honour, your assurances of confidentiality and discretion are vital (Dennis & Giangreco 1996). For the same reason, and because it would violate a parent-driven perspective, it will be crucial to avoid any implication that parents are to blame for their child’s difficulties. Some cultures do not value efficiency to the extent that Western culture does and therefore parents do not mean any disrespect if they do not attend meetings at the appointed time. Some will seek a prolonged time frame in which to develop a personal relationship with you and to discuss and tell stories about their child (Dennis & Giangreco 1996; Haboush 2007; Zhang & Bennett 2003), while you will need to allocate extra time


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

Honouring diversity

39

when using an interpreter. Some cultures value hospitality very highly, in which case they will be especially honoured to have you offer them some refreshment at meetings. As we cannot possibly know the nuances of every culture and there is considerable variation in beliefs and practices within any group, the most useful stance when working with parents from other cultures is one taken by the solution-focused approach (see chapter 4) – that is, a posture of ‘not-knowing’ (Berg & Steiner 2003). This is also consistent with a parent-driven model which recommends that you ask parents about their aspirations for their child, their expectations of your respective roles, preferences for how formally or informally to interact with you, and their values and preferred practices concerning their children’s behaviour and learning (Lynch 2004; Phoenix 2002). An inquisitive stance is ideal for working cross-culturally because, in having parents generate their own definitions of problems, determine their own goals and design interventions based on their own past successes, necessarily these will be in tune with their cultural and personal perspectives.

Father involvement In one study, father participation in preschool and the first year of school comprised only 10 per cent of all family involvement (Rimm-Kaufman & Zhang 2005). The preponderance of female teachers, particularly in early education, may serve as a barrier to fathers’ engagement at school. Also crucial is whether fathers are present in the home, while the level of conflict between the two parents determines to a significant extent fathers’ engagement with their children (Coley & Hernandez 2006). Offering sessions exclusively for fathers may not be as effective as specifically reaching out to include fathers alongside their partners (Turbiville & Marquis 2001). On the other hand, in the absence of court orders prohibiting fathers’ contact, school personnel need to give nonresidential fathers the chance to engage at school independently of their former partners (Frieman & Berkeley 2002).

Conclusion Children grow up accepting the family type in which they are reared. Indeed, ‘this is how cultures are transmitted’ (Bottomley 1983, p. 12). The conclusion from examining these diverse families is that it is not the type of family that influences children’s outcomes, but the quality of the parenting the children receive. This is independent of family type (Cleveland et al. 2000; Papero 2005). This awareness can allow us to recognise and respect parents’ personal emotional resources as the main


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

40


ingredients of parenting and the main influence on children’s adjustment and educational outcomes.

Additional resources Some of the following books will be useful either for your own background reading or for parents.

Divorce Burrett, J. (1999). But I want to stay with you: Talking with children about separation and divorce. Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Teyber, E. (1992). Helping children cope with divorce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wells, R. (1997). Helping children cope with divorce. London: Sheldon. Weyburne, D. (1999). What to tell the kids about your divorce. Oakland, CA: Harbinger.

Stepfamilies Boyd, H. (1998). The step-parent’s survival guide. London: Ward Lock. Hart-Byers, S. (1998). Secrets of successful step-families. Port Melbourne, VIC: Lothian. Rodwell, J. (2002). Repartnered families. Auckland: Penguin.


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

3

Communication skills

When a teacher talks to parents about their children, he [or she] inevitably intrudes on family dreams... What the teacher says about the child touches on deep feelings and hidden fantasies. A concerned teacher is aware of the impact of his [or her] words. He [or she] consciously avoids comments that may casually kill dreams. Ginott (1972, pp. 277–78)

Communication skills are not solutions to problems, but they are the tools for solving problems. Communication with your students’ parents is a matter of both substance and style. Interpersonal courtesies such as keeping appointments, being on time, being organised and prepared and following up on commitments all reinforce the quality of your communication (Dinnebeil, Hale & Rule 1996). Authentic communication is built on a belief in your own worth and that of parents, yielding four stances as depicted in Table 3.1. High-quality communication with your students’ parents gives you access to their intimate knowledge of their children, which helps you understand and therefore Table 3.1: Communication styles determined by perceptions of self and parents

You’re okay

You’re not okay

I’m okay

I’m not okay

COLLABORATIVE High self-efficacy High collective efficacy Solution focus

APPROVAL SEEKING Low self-efficacy Intimidated or placating

PROFESSIONAL-DRIVEN High self-efficacy Distrustful, turfism

ISOLATION Low self-efficacy Low quantity and quality of communication with parents

41


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

42


respond to your students’ needs. It also promotes a climate of trust between parents and teachers, and assures you of each other’s support.

Interaction styles Teachers’ use of ‘top-down’, or didactic, teaching can unwittingly extend into professional-driven interactions with parents. In contrast, parentdriven communication with parents requires that you respond to them with respect, warmth, positiveness and sensitivity. With these qualities in evidence, parents will be able to trust in your dependability and discretion (Blue-Banning et al. 2004) – that is, believe that you can be relied upon (Adams & Christenson 2000).

Respect Respect means honouring both parents and your students as individual human beings who are imbued with dignity (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005). Prizing individuals is more than being polite, but reflects a connection to their humanity (Townsend-Cross 2004). As an extension of this, parents want you not only to see their children as active in their learning, but also to demonstrate care for them and to promote respectful acceptance of them by others (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005). Nevertheless, when parents – perhaps out of stress – seem to be acting against their children’s interest, respect does not mean admiring or agreeing with their values or behaviour. In such cases, while you cannot endorse the behaviour, you can admire parents’ tenacity in surviving crises and enduring challenging circumstances (Rosenthal & Sawyers 1996). People do the best they can in the conditions that confront them.

Warmth Parents want an emotionally rich and supportive relationship with their child’s teachers, rather than a formal or distant one (Bennett et al. 1998; Fox et al. 2002; Galil et al. 2006; Kasahara & Turnbull 2005; Nelson, Summers & Turnbull 2004; Summers et al. 1990). However, for a range of reasons, warmth and friendliness are not the same as being friends with your students’ parents. This is because, first, you are paid to teach their children. Once a student leaves your class, you are no longer paid to relate to the parent, whereupon that relationship will usually end. Second, unlike most friendships, your relationship with parents has a particular purpose. Third, friendships have no boundaries (Stonehouse & Gonzalez-Mena 2004), whereas you will need to maintain limits on your professional responsibilities in order to avoid conflicts of interest and exploitation of both of you. A


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM


43

lack of appropriate boundaries can be apparent when parents become overly reliant on you, with their escalating requests for support becoming unmanageable. Fourth, friendships with your students’ parents can cause them to be reluctant to question your recommendations, in case doing so jeopardises your relationship (Nelson et al. 2004) while, for your part, it may be difficult to be assertive with them over professional matters when trying to safeguard your friendship. Fifth, breakdown in the relationship can jeopardise your continuing professional obligations to their child. Finally, you also lay yourself open to accusations of favouritism (Nelson et al. 2004).

Positiveness Positiveness involves thinking the best about students’ and families’ capacities, your own skills and the possibilities for children’s progress. At the same time, this must be balanced with honesty. While honesty without tact is plain cruelty, when their child is experiencing difficulties at school, it is no kindness to parents to withhold this feedback in order to shield them or to protect yourself from confronting them with unpleasant information. Therefore, you will need to outline your concerns, illustrated with a concrete description of a behavioural incident or examples of the student’s work, as the case may be. In the next phase, you will need to listen to their impressions and respond to their questions and suggestions.

Sensitivity When collaborating with families, it is important to be sensitive, first, to their circumstances, as these will affect what energies they have available to support their children’s education. Second, you need to listen to parents’ aspirations for their son or daughter. On the other hand, although sensitivity and empathy towards parents are clearly beneficial qualities, you must avoid feeling sympathy for those enduring stressful circumstances. Pity does not give families confidence in their own ability to overcome adversity, and when they instead become reliant on outside support you may become overwhelmed with ‘compassion fatigue’ that will result in burn out.

Responsiveness Like sensitivity, responsiveness involves listening to parents, having an enquiring mind and being willing to suspend judgement in order to provide, arrange for or recommend services that they request. Responsiveness can also mean not imposing services that parents do not want. Responsiveness requires that you be accessible to parents, as working only to a rigid timetable relegates them to being mere ‘cases’ (Nelson et al.


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

44


2004). This signals your commitment to your students and their parents – that is, a willingness to ‘do whatever it takes’. Responsiveness also requires some role flexibility (Swick 2003), or an ability to ‘make things happen’ (Blue-Banning et al. 2004). At the same time, however, teachers have to guard against being too available, as that can unwittingly undermine parents, creating dependence on outsiders and reducing their confidence in their ability to solve their own problems, while contributing to unmanageable demands on you. Responsiveness also does not imply that you must indulge parental requests that violate your professional judgement about best practice because, while in a parent-driven model, you must respect parents’ expertise, you both must equally respect yours. Responsiveness also requires that you be willing to learn and keep up to date with information as it emerges (Blue-Banning et al. 2004). While having confidence in your knowledge of available information, you do not have to feign expertise about the unknown, but instead can admit to uncertainties (Hughes & MacNaughton 2002).

Authentic listening Listening is at the heart of authentic communication. Its first component is to give others your attention. This conveys that you value both the person and their message (Swick 2003). Giving attention means stopping whatever else you are doing, as portrayed in the motto: Don’t just do something: stand there. (Rosenberg 2003, p. 91)

Your other nonverbal behaviours also communicate interest, by maintaining appropriate eye contact and using a courteous tone of voice. Once attending, you can invite speakers to tell you more, in response to which you might say very little – maybe just ‘mm-hmm’, ‘oh’ or ‘I see’ – or you could repeat back the last few words that they have said, to encourage them to carry on. When listening, it pays to ask very few questions – especially ones that call for a yes/no answer – because questions will direct, rather than follow, what they are telling you. A series of questions can make speakers feel that they are being subjected to an inquisition, rather than being listened to. The next component of listening is reflecting others’ feelings. This can be especially confronting when others are expressing strong emotions, particularly anger at us. But emotions, like rivers, cannot be stopped – only channelled (Ginott, Ginott & Goddard 2003). Reflection is a core skill for channelling feelings in a more constructive direction. It paraphrases


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM


45

or summarises what others are saying, reflecting the content, emotion or meaning behind their message (Bolton 1987). Often, we believe that we are listening when instead our responses discourage others from talking to us. Box 3.1 (page 46) lists 12 common conversational habits that Gordon (1970) called ‘roadblocks to communication’, to which Bolton (1987) later added a 13th: accusing other people (blaming them) or feeling guilty ourselves for using the communication roadblocks. Of the three categories that Gordon identified, giving advice is probably the most common because we all want to help others to feel better. But it foreshortens your conversation by not waiting to hear what was their real problem, tells others that you think they are not capable of finding their own solutions and makes it less likely that they will do as you suggest because it was not their idea.

Responding to parental complaints A prime occasion when you will need to use listening skills is when parents have approached you with a complaint. As consumers of an important (and in terms of private school fees or tax contributions for public education, an expensive) service, parents would be irresponsible if they did not closely question what you offer their children (Greenman & Stonehouse 2007). This means that, regardless of their manner, you need to meet their questions and demands with courtesy. Even ‘difficult’ parents are not being demanding just to make you jump through hoops: they need and have a right to ask questions. Although strong emotions can be intimidating, it will help not to take parents’ behaviour personally. Remember that it is being triggered by their situation (not by you) and that, from their perspective, they believe that they have a valid reason for their feelings. All mammals become feral when their young are under threat, while some will be hostile because of their own unsatisfactory or abusive schooling history (Miller 2003; Roffey 2002). Any expression of blame or hopelessness is a sign that they care deeply about their child. Given that you also want the best for their child, a statement of this, your shared interest, is a good starting point (Keyser 2006). Also, keep in mind that it takes courage for parents to confront you with a complaint and perhaps they have had to stir themselves up to summon the nerve. On that basis, you will need to listen, acknowledge their frustration or anger, and reflect what they are saying. Nevertheless, if parents become belligerent, uncooperative, abusive or otherwise disrespectful, offensive or overpowering you will need them to moderate how they are talking to you. It might help to direct such parents to what they want to accomplish (Jones & Jones 2004). For example:


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

46


Box 3.1 Roadblocks to communication Judging It is important to accept that others feel something, even when we do not understand why they feel as they do. • Criticising or blaming. Criticising others is a clear message that we do not accept their feelings. • Praising others tries to talk them out of their feelings, as when we say to a parent, ‘I know you’ll figure out what to do for the best. You’re such a resourceful person’. • Name-calling is much the same and has similar effects to criticising and blaming others. • Diagnosing or interpreting what others are feeling is an attempt to tell them what their ‘real’ problem is, discounting their view of it. Sending solutions Sometimes, we believe that we are listening, when instead we are attempting to tell others what they should do about their problem. • Directing them to stop what they are feeling or doing tells them that their perspective is not important. • Threatening is an attempt to impose a solution on others. • Preaching explains why they should feel or behave differently. It is patronising because it treats others as if they did not already know what you are telling them. • Interrogating asks a series of questions to try to get to the root of the problem. Probing suggests that you are about to find a solution for speakers, instead of trusting them to find their own. • Advising is an attempt to impose a positive solution which, although intended well, hurries people to take action before they have had time to explore their thoughts and feelings adequately. Avoiding the other person’s feelings A third group of communication roadblocks tries to take the heat out of others’ feelings, perhaps because these embarrass or distress us. • Distracting people from their worries without giving them time to resolve these can cause them to believe that we do not really want to hear what is on their mind. • Logical argument sends the message: ‘Don’t feel: Think’. • Reassuring tries to change how others feel, conveying that they are not allowed to feel as they do. This ignores the depth of their emotions and communicates that you do not understand them.


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM


47

‘I accept that you are angry that Simon was sent out of class. Perhaps we can focus on what you would like to see happen next time so that his behaviour doesn’t hurt others but he still feels that he has been listened to?’ It is crucial that you do not get hooked into placating or pleasing parents when their complaints are unjustified, as that demeans you and the colleague who handled the incident (Swick 2003). On the other hand, blaming parents, yourself or colleagues is not helpful either. A method called ‘negative assertion’ can be useful, as long as it is genuinely meant. In this approach, after listening to parents’ first complaint, you would ask them to tell you more about it, until you have explored all you can about that particular issue. If they remain disgruntled, you then ask what else they want to tell you… and then what else, until finally they have exhausted their head of steam and are now willing to move to the next step of working with you to find a solution. Sometimes, inevitably, your time will be limited. When anxious about an impending commitment, your response is likely to be less than ideal. In that case, it will help to advise the parents of your time constraints at the outset and suggest that all you can do now is schedule another meeting. A second occasion during which pressure will not help is when parents confront you with a grievance without prior warning. In that event, it can be useful to impose a time limit deliberately to give yourself time to evaluate their complaint. A delay will also give them time to calm down. No one can listen to even the most reasonable explanation while he or she is angry. Therefore, take the information, offer to think about it or to gather more facts from those involved, and then get back to the parents for a follow-up conversation. If this does not satisfy their immediate concerns, you can invite the parents to speak with the principal. Even if, like you, the principal cannot resolve the issue immediately, nevertheless being granted access to someone in higher authority can satisfy the parents that you are taking the matter seriously. In most instances, listening to the feeling behind parents’ manner will effectively avoid a confrontation. However, to cover those rare instances in which that does not work, your school will need a policy for protecting staff from physical threats. This will encompass procedures for withdrawing to a safe location and requesting backup from a colleague or even the police or other security personnel. In the long term, it will be helpful to let parents know about a procedure for expressing complaints. This will ask that, in the first instance, they approach the teacher involved, rather than speaking first with the principal. To go to superiors before giving those involved a chance to explain or respond is disrespectful and will make them defensive (Penney & Wilgosh 2000).


15/1/08 11:47:36 AM

48


Assertiveness The second communication skill of assertiveness is necessary when others’ behaviour frustrates your own needs or those of your students. Generally, you will be aware that this is happening because it will provoke what is often called a ‘negative’ emotion. Although we would prefer to feel only ‘positive’ emotions, despite their pejorative label these ‘negative’ feelings are actually very helpful as they signal that our needs are being violated (Hart & Hodson 2004). The cornerstone of assertiveness is accepting responsibility for our own feelings and needs. This means that we must avoid victim language that blames others for how we feel and obscures the recognition that we make our own choices. For example, we often claim that we ‘cannot help’ our behaviour, perhaps because of uncontrollable impulses. Or we believe that we ‘have’ to or ‘must’ do something (as if someone is threatening execution at dawn if we do not comply) because our role demands it: ‘I have to stay back late to get this done’. At its most basic, avoiding this kind of victim language means that we cannot say to students or their parents, ‘That makes me angry’. Instead, we must accept that our feelings are created by our own thoughts – by how we interpret (that is, think about) events. When attempting to be assertive, we often also use words that appear to describe feelings, when in fact they are interpretations of others’ actions. Examples include when we say that we are feeling manipulated, pressured, overworked, oppressed or taken for granted (Rosenberg 2003). Alternatives that express our actual feelings rather than others’ actions (or lack of them) include: annoyed, bitter, disappointed, disgruntled, tired, frustrated, irritated, overwhelmed and resentful. Being assertive is likely to be more successful than simply hoping that someone else will guess what you require. It is also a better option than waiting until a problem has festered into simmering resentments or caused you to vent your anger inappropriately. Assertiveness helps others to know and understand you as an honest human being, and to act thoughtfully once they realise what you need. It demonstrates that you respect yourself and communicates that you believe others are mature enough to handle what you tell them. Although confronting others may seem like a negative reflection on their behaviour, it does in fact convey not a criticism but respect for their ability to withstand your dissatisfaction.

Manage anger It is both natural and human to be angry on occasion at students’ (and parents’) behaviour. However, being such a strong emotion, anger takes careful management and should not be indulged: it is not okay to become


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


49

abusive just because we are outraged. To regulate anger, it can help, first, to recognise that it is not the first emotion that you feel but is a response to a prior feeling. Usually anger is a reaction to being hurt or fearful that you will not receive what you need (which is known as frustration). Communicating these original feelings will be more effective than telling others that you are angry at them. Even more importantly, anger indicates that we are analysing or judging – others or ourselves; instead, we must reflect on which of our needs is not being met (Rosenberg 2003). Thinking angry and resentful thoughts makes it less rather than more likely that our need will be satisfied. Our task, then, is to harness the energy behind the anger and channel it into expressing what we require. Anger simply signals that our present methods are not working and need to be changed. As with any problem solving, the steps are to ask yourself: • • •

What do I want to achieve here? Is what I am doing helping me to achieve that? If not, what else could I do?

The next steps are to act in these new ways and, subsequently, check that they are working.

Construct I-messages When others’ actions are interfering with getting your needs met, you will have to tell them so, by relating what you need, not describing their behaviour. Telling others about themselves is called a ‘you’ message and is generally aggressive, not assertive. Instead, assertiveness involves that word ‘I’: ‘I have another meeting shortly and need to prepare for that. I would be glad to make a time to talk to you about this as soon as I can’. Assertive messages need to avoid any hint of accusation, because otherwise recipients will feel guilty and react negatively. The basic I-message has three components: • • •

a statement about how we feel about the behaviour we are seeing a description of the needs, values or wishes that are generating these feelings a request to the other person to do something to meet our needs.

Taking each aspect in turn, when disclosing how you feel, it is important to be accurate about the strength of your emotions, neither over-stating them nor diluting them with qualifiers such as ‘really’ ‘pretty’ or ‘a bit’. During part two of the assertive message, it can be difficult to detect and name the need that is giving rise to your feelings, especially when you have been trained never to ask for what you require. This takes practice. Part three


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

50


of the assertive message asks others to do something to meet your needs. When doing so, it is important not to tell them what they should do, as that would invite submission, rebellion or sabotage (Rosenberg 2003). You can determine if you are making a demand rather than a request by observing how you respond if the person does not do as you ask: if you blame, attempt to lay on guilt or in other ways punish the person for not complying, that is a demand. In contrast, a request is signified by a display of empathy for the other person’s objections to your request (Rosenberg 2003). Your goal cannot be to ensure compliance, but to build better understanding. Having described these three basic components, there are five specific types of assertive messages that can be useful (Jakubowski & Lange 1978). For each, there will be two phases to their delivery: first, saying what you require and, second, listening to the recipient’s reaction.

‘I-want’ statements This first type of assertive message asks someone to meet our needs. However, sometimes when we express what we want, it can be misinterpreted as a demand instead of a request. To prevent this, you can qualify your statement in some way. One option is to ask how willing or able the other person is to do as you ask. For example: ‘I need Sam to be at school on time so he doesn’t disrupt us when he comes in after the lesson has started. Do you think that’s manageable for you?’ A second way to qualify a request is to state how strongly you would like it: ‘I absolutely must prepare for my next meeting. So, while I want to talk with you about this, I urgently need to leave now. Can we make another time to meet?’ A third approach is to state what your request means and doesn’t mean: ‘I really hope we can find a way for you to get Sam here on time most days. But I certainly don’t want you to be under such pressure that you decide to keep him home for the day rather than bringing him in late’.

‘I-feel’ messages As its title implies, this second type of assertive message tells others about your feelings. Most people who have read anything about assertiveness are familiar with the ‘I feel’ statement in the form of: When you (do such and such), I feel (whatever) because (my rights are being violated in this way). However, in my experience, this kind of statement is not very successful. It tends to provoke defensiveness, as listeners can feel blamed and criticised, with the result that they become defensive. Furthermore, we


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


51

often mistakenly express thoughts rather than feelings. You can tell if you are doing this by noticing whether ‘I feel’ is followed by words such as that, as if, or like, with pronouns (I, you, she, they or it) or by a person’s name (Rosenberg 2003). Examples of the distinction are given in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2 Distinctions between thoughts and feelings Thought I feel that you should help tidy up. I feel like a failure. I feel that I have to do everything around here. I feel that she is being bossy.

Feeling I am frustrated at this mess. I am disappointed in myself. I resent being overworked. I am angry at being denied the chance to make my own decisions.

Therefore, to avoid resistance and to ensure that you talk about feelings rather than thoughts, instead name the need that leads to your feelings. This follows the format: I feel… because I need... This message is more likely to receive a compassionate hearing from others. As an example, instead of, ‘When you bring Sam late to school, I feel frustrated because it disrupts the class when he comes in’, your statement of need would become, ‘I feel disappointed when Sam is late, because I need a few quiet minutes to settle everyone down so they can concentrate’.

Empathic assertion Like the When you… I feel… because formula, an empathic assertive message also has three parts, but it begins by expressing understanding of others. This is powerful as it conveys that they have reasons for the behaviour but that, coincidentally, their attempts to fulfil a need happens to frustrate satisfaction of yours. This empathy reduces their defensiveness at a perceived accusation and, by listening to them first, builds goodwill and therefore makes it more likely that they will listen to you in return. Having expressed understanding, the second part of an empathic assertive message is to tell the person about your need and, third, ask for a joint resolution. For example: I understand that there is a lot for you to do in the mornings and I appreciate the times when Sam is here early. (Empathy.) I would like, though, to see if we can come up with a plan for him to be here on time routinely, without putting you under pressure. (Statement of your need.) Do you have any ideas that might help? (Resolution attempt.)


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

52


Mixed feeling statements In this fourth type of assertive message, you name more than one feeling and explain why you feel each. For example: I appreciate that Sam has been on time these past three days. I was disappointed this morning, though, that he disrupted the group by arriving late.

Confrontive assertion This is useful when others have broken a prior agreement about their behaviour. The confrontive assertive message has three parts: • • •

Describe in a non-judgemental way what the two of you previously agreed. Describe what the other person did. Negotiate what you can do about that.

For example: We agreed that you would ask Marta to bring Sam a couple of times a week to take the pressure off you. I see that this isn’t happening any more and he is arriving late quite often. Do you have any suggestions for solving this?

Listen to others’ reactions After you have stated what you need, others sometimes respond negatively, perhaps by becoming aggressive or defensive, or by withdrawing. These emotions signal that they now have the problem. Therefore, give them some time to digest your statement and their feelings, and then reflect back the emotion behind the reaction. For example: ‘I sense that you think I don’t understand how difficult the mornings are for you’. Finally, repeat your assertive message, stating again your feelings and the unmet need that gives rise to them. It can take from three to 10 assertive messages before other people are willing to change their behaviour; therefore you will need to persist. And of course, if you notice even a hint that they are willing to do as you ask, reflect this back.

Collaborative problem solving The third communication skill, collaborative problem solving, is used when two people are being negatively affected by each other’s actions. Conflict between individuals is both inevitable and productive, in that it signals that their needs are not being met and therefore can trigger a search for a solution. In the process, resolution can build greater understanding of each other. Therefore, rather than looking for someone to blame for a


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


53

violation of our needs, our goal will be to craft a solution that allows both people to receive what they require without impinging on others.

Guiding principle Look for a solution, not a culprit.

The collaborative problem-solving process entails the following six steps. 1. Agree to talk it over. 2. Listen to what others need and tell them assertively, but without aggression, what you require. Keep in mind that you both are attempting to get your needs met: the conflict is merely about the strategies you each have chosen. 3. Together, come up with ideas of what you could do that would satisfy both of you. At this stage, do not evaluate how practical these suggestions are, just brainstorm all possibilities, even silly ones. If it helps, write them down. 4. Next, decide which of the options you will take. Do not choose a compromise that satisfies no one, but instead persist until you find a solution that meets both your needs. 5. Decide when and how to carry out your chosen solution. 6. Once a solution is in place, check whether it is working. With simple, everyday problems, the steps do not have to be as regimented, although solving even minor issues will always entail the basic component of listening to each other.

Box 3.3 Summary of communication skills Whose need is unfulfilled

Communication skill

The parent is in need

➔

Listening

Your rights or those of your students are being violated

➔

1 Assertiveness 2 Listening to others’ reaction

Both yours and a parent’s needs are not being fulfilled

➔

Collaborative problem solving


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

54


Conclusion The professional-driven and family-allied models locate power with teachers. This lack of respect for parents inevitably leads to failures in parent–teacher communications. In other words, failed communication is not the reason that solutions to school-based problems are not found; failed communication is only a symptom of inequity between teachers and parents (Hughes & MacNaughton 2002). Within the alternative, parent-driven model, authentic communication respects the goodness and fragility of others (Swick 2003). This deep connection to their humanity provides the foundation for a truly collaborative relationship.

Additional resources Bolton, R. (1987). People skills. Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Hart, S. & Hodson, V.K. (2004). The compassionate classroom: Relationship based teaching and learning. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press. Rosenberg, M.B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life. (2nd ed.) Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press.

Website Center for Nonviolent Communication: http://www.cnvc.org


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

4

Solution-focused problem solving

The person is not the problem; The problem is the problem. Winslade & Monk (1999, p. 2)

When collaborating with parents to resolve their children’s school-based difficulties, your starting point will be to respect the fact that they will have been co-opted somewhat involuntarily into discussing these with you. While wanting the best for their child and thus being willing to be involved, parents would prefer not to have the problem in the first place. Therefore, they will not relish the prospect of yet another encounter with school personnel about their child’s difficulties. The fact that previous efforts to solve recurrent problems have been unsuccessful means that parents’ selfassurance may be compromised and they may feel sceptical and lack hope about the chances of success of any new intervention. Furthermore, their child’s failure at school may mirror their own unsuccessful school career, in which case they are likely to approach you with suspicion and distrust. Nevertheless, you have a common interest in wanting the problem to be resolved. You both want relief from it.

Guiding principles Solution-focused theory holds that, when people have problems that undermine their functioning, they are more familiar with those problems than outsiders can ever be (Selekman 1997). They are the experts on how the problem affects their lives and, often unbeknownst to themselves, are the experts on how they can affect it. This belief that young people and their parents have the wisdom to solve their own problems not only respects them, but also relieves you of the responsibility of being the expert with all the answers. Instead, you may quiet your own assumptions and

55


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

56


‘expert’ frame of reference, enquire about what they want for their life and affirm their skills for attaining this (De Jong & Berg 2002). Their answers to your questions (rather than your own assumptions) will provoke your next question. This means that, although this chapter and Figure 4.1

1 Define the problem Discover participants’ definition of the problem

2 Map the problem’s influence Describe the length, breadth and depth (severity) of the problem

3 Articulate goals Discover what is important in life to those experiencing the problem

4 Explore exceptions Identify occasions when the problem was absent or less severe; discover how participants caused that

5 Expand on solutions Recommend that those involved repeat or enlarge on previously successful solutions

6 Notice and highlight progress Elicit exceptions; amplify changes; reinforce solutions; start again

7 Plan to maintain progress Plan how to overcome setbacks Plan for unanticipated challenges

Figure 4.1: Phases of solution-focused problem solving


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


57

might imply that a solution-focused approach is linear, it actually flows from recursive conversation (Carey & Russell 2003). Solution-focused theory states that recurrent problems are not a sign of individual pathology, but merely signal that people are stuck (not sick) (Murphy 2006). The theory takes little interest in how people got stuck in the first place. Instead, it focuses on how solutions can be developed (Nichols & Schwartz 1995). As such, it has a future orientation, rather than an interest in the past (De Jong & Berg 2002; Molnar & de Shazer 1987; Murphy 1994). As its name implies, solution-focused problem solving also avoids a deficit perspective: your task is not to assess problems, but to listen for parents’ and students’ accounts of what is working (Murphy 2006). To focus in this way on people’s competencies instead of their presumed pathologies is a choice, rather than an issue of fact (Durrant & Kowalski 1995, in Murphy & Duncan 1997). It is based on the assumptions that young people want to please their parents and make their parents proud of them; they want to be active and involved and learn new skills; to be accepted and belong in their social group; for their opinions and choices to be honoured; and to be surprised by and to surprise others (Berg & Steiner 2003, p. 18). Adolescents, in particular, want to be respected for who they are now, rather than who they have been (Davis & Osborn 2000). From this description, it is clear that the solution-focused approach fits neatly within a parent-driven model because its interventions are driven by those experiencing the problem, rather than by an outside adviser (Duncan, Miller & Sparks 2003).

Steps for solution building The recursive and coercive interactions that can occur between students and teachers, particularly over chronic disruptive behaviour (as illustrated in Figure 7.1 on page 122), can also take place between parents and teachers, with each accusing the other of incompetence. Teachers tend to blame student problems on home or child factors, while overlooking the teaching context that might be provoking some of the difficulties (BibouNakou, Kiosseoglou & Stogiannidou 2000; Miller 2003). Students and parents tend to blame teacher unfairness and student vulnerability (although parents do also recognise certain disadvantaging features of their home life) (Miller et al. 2002). Rather than allocating blame, four principles can inform your interactions with parents to resolve school-based difficulties. First, you must recognise that this is a school-based problem and therefore the school must be the one to solve it. Even if parents did instigate disciplinary


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

58


measures at home, these would have little impact on their child’s behaviour at school (Miller 2003). Second, your purpose in informing parents of concerns about their child at school is not to have them punish their child at home. You would not punish a child at school for something that happened at home. On the contrary, your purpose is to harness their expertise to suggest how you might solve it. The third principle is that all parents from all backgrounds want to be proud of their children, to give them educational and other opportunities that they themselves might not have had, and to have a good relationship with their children (Berg & Steiner 2003). They want to have hope for their children. Therefore, when collaborating with parents it is important to fortify and restore their pride in their children. Finally, it is self-evident that you will be working with parents at times when there is a problem to be solved, rather than when all is going well. At such times, it could be easy to fall into a trap of judging them or assuming that their personal or parenting deficiencies are the cause of their children’s difficulties. However, pressure on students at school can cause stress for even a well-functioning family and can add intolerable pressure to one that is already strained. This implies that the final key ingredient of collaborating with parents is to bear in mind the quote that heads this chapter: that students or their parents are not the problem: The problem is the problem (Winslade & Monk 1999, p. 2).

Preparation Problem-solving meetings must be conducted in a private space, without distractions (Hughes & MacNaughton 2002; MacNaughton 2004). You will need to allocate enough time to enable parents to feel comfortable and to discuss your concerns and listen to their reactions. This groundwork aside, the most fundamental aspect of preparation for a conference with parents is to know their child well.

Negotiate whom to involve In many families, grandparents or other extended family members have a crucial role as elders or as major or supplementary care providers for children. In light of this, discover ahead of time who should be included in any meeting aimed at resolving students’ difficulties. As those most affected by the outcome of any meeting between you and their parents, students have a right to be involved in discussions concerning them. More than this, however, they are the experts on their own problems and can advise adults how to respond. If their attendance at


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


59

meetings would mean that they were heavily out-numbered by adults, they can invite a best friend along for moral support or as adviser to the adults. If a friend cannot attend or students decline to invite anyone, you can allocate an empty seat on which you place the friend’s name. Participants at the meeting can address the empty chair, asking hypothetically of the friend in his or her absence questions such as, ‘I wonder what Shara would advise us about this?’

Engage parents’ expertise Given that they see their children in a wide variety of contexts and over a longer time period than teachers, that children behave differently at home versus school and that parents have intimate knowledge of their children’s emotional wellbeing, they can be more accurate than teachers in describing their child’s characteristic behaviours (Lindsay & Dockrell 2000). This expertise can inform solutions. Additionally, when attempting to solve their son’s or daughter’s school-based difficulties, parents can fulfil the following many supportive functions (Freeman, Epston & Lobovits 1997): • • •

•

Parents can give examples and enlarge on stories that enrich the descriptions of their child’s problem and of exceptions to it. They can brainstorm ideas and solutions. They can become co-conspirators or part of the student’s ‘team’, helping him or her to outwit, tame, combat, conquer, oppose or overcome the problem. They form an audience that can highlight and celebrate their child’s mastery over the problem.

This embracing of parents’ expertise can be a significant reversal of the pattern of uncooperative and unproductive relationships between families and school that can become entrenched when students have chronic difficulties (Lindquist, Molnar & Brauchmann 1987; Lusterman 1985).

Phase 1 Define the problem Following the sequence of steps illustrated in Figure 4.1, your first task in solution-focused work is to describe what happens when the problem occurs and to identify who does what in response to it. When eliciting these details, your purpose is not to establish a consensus about the facts: it is enough to understand how participants perceive the problem, because they act as though their perceptions are reality. Perceptions are all there ever is (Fisch, Weakland & Segal 1982). Therefore, you do not have to agree with their view or endorse it as the only possible perspective, but merely recognise that it is the one from which they are operating.


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

60


Students’ and parents’ description of the sequence of events surrounding the problem will yield their history or ‘story’ of the problem. However, when problems have endured for some time, a person’s whole identity can come to be defined by his or her difficulties. The image that others have of the person – and often the image he or she holds of himor herself – becomes saturated with incidents of problematic behaviour. The person is seen in terms of being ‘mad, bad or sad’, while his or her many other skills and qualities are overlooked (Perry 1999). In order to avoid the spiralling gloom and despondency that inevitably arises from an exclusive focus on problems, early in your conversation you will need to ask students or their parents to tell you something about them that would surprise you, that you might not know. This focus on aspects other than the problem is not merely to build rapport or ease into talking about difficult issues, but to gather information about their skills and personal attributes that can become part of the solution that you will jointly generate. Skills to look out for include actions that indicate courage, strength, dedication, effort, wise judgement, loyalty, cooperation and caring for others, to name but a few (De Jong & Berg 2002; Sklare 2005).

Phase 2 Map the problem’s influence So that you can appreciate the gravity of the problem, once you have understood its manifestations, you can ask how long it has been in the student’s life, whether it has been getting worse or better, and how those involved anticipate that it might unfold in the future. This maps the problem’s length. You also need to understand to what depth or intensity the problem is felt: does it weigh heavily on the student? Does its severity vary? When is it hardest to handle? (Winslade & Monk 1999). Third, its breadth refers to how widely the problem has affected the student’s life (Winslade & Monk 1999). Does it affect school life only, or has it spread into his or her family, peer and other relationships? Has it interfered with school work, career plans, social life, extracurricular activities? Does it affect how the student thinks about him- or herself (Freeman et al. 1997; Morgan 2000)? These questions are aimed at acknowledging the distress that the problem has caused to those experiencing it. You might summarise this effect as taking the fun out of life, interfering with the student’s relationships, or causing him or her to do poorly in class.

Phase 3 Articulate goals In order to provide a clear direction for change, goals must be concrete, realistic and measurable so that improvement can be recognised. Even more importantly, goals must be meaningful to those having to make changes so that they are motivated to do so. You can elicit the goals of those involved by asking them what they would like to get out of your


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


61

conversation or how they would know things were improving. The ‘miracle question’ is fundamental here (de Shazer 1988); this asks those involved to imagine that last night, while they were sleeping, a miracle happened and their problem was fixed. You follow this up by asking what will have changed in their lives, who will be doing what differently. This question can be made less formal by asking, ‘If tomorrow turned out to be a good day for you, what would be happening?’ (Ajmal 2001). Or, you can ask them to pretend that there are two movies of their life, one with the problem as it is now and another without the problem: What does the second movie look like? (Murphy 2006). Their answers will tell you what is important to them in life, what they value and how they would like to live. This is their goal. The aim is for those involved to express positive goals that state what they want to happen in their lives, rather than negative goals stating what they want stopped (De Jong & Berg 2002; Sklare 2005). Thus, when they declare that they want a given behaviour to cease or for other people to change, these negative goals will have to be translated into something positive that they can do (e.g. ‘If you weren’t losing your temper, what would you be doing instead?’, ‘If your teacher were being nicer to you, what would you be doing differently to make that happen?’). When they identify impossible goals, such as for their divorced parents to reunite, you can respond to such wishes by asking, ‘That means a lot to you because…?’ (Sklare 2005, p. 30), which allows you then to focus on finding ways to meet the underlying need. The same rationale lies behind instances in which the student’s goal is to leave school or take up a delinquent lifestyle, when you can ask how that will help him or her, so that you can detect the need (goal) that the antisocial behaviour is intended to satisfy. If, even with the miracle question, those involved still say that they do not know what they want, you can ask hypothetical questions: ‘If you did know… If you had to take a guess, what might it be?’ or distal questions such as, ‘What would your Mum (or best friend) tell me was the most important thing to you?’ Once their goals are framed in achievable terms, scaling questions can ask students or their parents to rate their present problem on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the worst it’s ever been and 10 being the day after the miracle), so they can assess how close they already are to achieving their goal. The following questions can be useful (Kral & Kowalski 1989; Rhodes 1993; Wagner & Gillies 2001). • • • • •

At what number is your life at the moment? How happy are you with that number? (This will tell you how motivated they are to change their behaviour.) What number would you prefer to be at? What will life be like at x + 1? What will you be doing differently? Have you ever been at x + 1 before? If so, what was happening then?


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM

62

• • •


What do you think are the chances that you will reach (the goal number)? How will you know that you are making progress? What will be the first sign? When this problem is entirely solved, what will be happening that is different from what is occurring now?

Some parents can be so oppressed by what seems to be the intractability of their child’s school difficulties that they find it difficult to identify any optimistic goals. The exploration of exceptions can assist with this.

Phase 4 Explore exceptions The assumption guiding this next phase is that, although an enduring problem can appear to be ‘always’ happening, this is an illusion: change is inevitable. There will be times when the problem is not occurring, is happening less often, or is less intense. These occasions are called exceptions. Their existence proves that a solution is already in place. All individuals, no matter how stuck, are doing something to prevent a problem from occurring at least some of the time; and all environments, no matter how bleak, are supporting them to achieve that. Your task in this phase, then, is to help students or their parents identify these occasions and describe what they did to make these happen. In other words, rather than looking for what is wrong and how to fix it, a solution orientation searches for what is right and how to use it (Berg & Miller 1992, in Davis & Osborn 2000). Once those involved can recount instances when the problem was absent or less severe than usual, you can ask specific questions to help them identify what they did to generate these exceptions (Carey & Russell 2003): • • • •

Are you aware of how you got that to happen? Did you take any steps leading up to it? What did you do to pull that off? What were you thinking at the time that helped you do that?

A second set of questions implies something about the person’s identity (Carey & Russell 2003): • • • •

What does this tell us about your ability to control the problem? What does it tell us about what is important to you in life, that you were willing to do that? What did the problem have you thinking about yourself before?… What do you think about yourself now?’ Can you tell me about other times you have acted to give yourself a better life?

When parents are so paralysed by their child’s or their own problems that they cannot notice exceptions or their role in enabling these, resiliency


15/1/08 11:47:37 AM


63

questions can help. You can begin by asking them in their child’s presence how they know that he or she can do better (Berg & Steiner 2003). When young people hear that their parents believe they have some fine qualities, they will experience the care and support that they seldom otherwise hear and cannot ask for outright. Another resiliency question asks family members about previous occasions when they have overcome adversity or solved this or other issues for their family. You could ask, ‘What skills and strategies have you been using that have prevented this problem from getting worse than it is now?’ (Selekman 1997). If even the miracle question and these resiliency questions do not assist them in identifying goals and their capacity to achieve these, you can externalise the problem, as outlined below. This method allows the problem to be the villain, rather than the child.

Phase 5 Expand on solutions Once those involved can describe their goals and the skills they have used on occasion to achieve at least part of what they want, you need to ‘build a bridge’ between their past and future successes (De Jong & Berg 2002). During your exploration of exceptions, you will have listened for solutions, of which there are four types: those that have failed, those that have worked, those that have been considered but not implemented, and those that others have advised (Murphy & Duncan 1997). Discovering what has failed tells you what not to try again, while finding out what has worked, even partially, gives you the clue to what may work again and what strengths those involved have already brought to bear on the problem – and therefore could use again. Once the discussion has generated a potential solution, you might support their ideas with some suggested tasks aimed at increasing the frequency of their solution attempts and transferring these to other situations (Murphy 2006). These tasks constitute the ‘bridge’ between their former and future successes. •

•

When those involved can identify their previously successful strategies, ask what it would take for them to use these again. If they doubt their abilities to do so, merely have them observe what is different about those times when they do manage to create an exception (de Shazer 1988). When those involved believe that the exceptions were just flukes, to heighten their awareness that these are not in fact mere accidents but happen as a result of something they do (Carey 1999), you could, for example, ask younger students about their heroes and then enquire: ‘What do you think (their hero’s name) would do if faced with this problem? Would that be something you’d be willing to try?’ (Murphy 2006). Alternatively, you could set up a game where on any given day the student could pretend that the miracle/solution/goal had happened. Durrant (1995) gives the example of inviting a student to act as


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

64

•


though he did not feel like throwing things at his peers, was having fun and was enjoying his work. Meanwhile, his teacher was to guess whether he was pretending or was ‘for real’. This helped the teacher to notice those occasions when the student’s behaviour had improved, instead of naturally focusing on the times when the problem was manifested. When those involved are convinced that the problem always happens and accordingly feel hopeless or helpless, you can suggest observational tasks such as, ‘Next time we meet, I want you to describe to me one thing in your life that you want to continue to have happen’ (De Jong & Berg 2002, p. 130). Or you can ask them to reflect on what they are doing to prevent the problem from becoming even more serious (Molnar & de Shazer 1987).

When students or their parents are having difficulty believing they can control exceptions, you can use what is known as ‘reversal questions’, which ask students or their best friend to act as the adults’ advisers about how their parents should respond to their behaviour at home, or how their teachers should handle it at school. Alternatively, consultancy questions can explicitly capitalise on parents’ knowledge: ‘Given that you know your child better than anyone else, what suggestions do you have for us to help him/her at school? (Murphy 2006)… You’ve spoken to your child’s previous teachers about this in the past. What have we all missed so far that could help?… If I have another student with similar issues in my class in future, what could you tell me about how I might help him or her?… If there was one useful question about your child’s behaviour that I could ask, what would that question be?’ (Selekman 1997). When two parents disagree on a solution, it is clear that they are both committed to solving the child’s difficulties and both want what is best for him or her. Therefore, you cannot take sides with one or the other. Instead, you can suggest that each morning they flip a coin, with heads signalling that the mother is in charge for the day and tails denoting that the father is. The one who is in charge enacts his or her solution for the day, while the other notices what works about the other’s approach (De Jong & Berg 2002). This undermines the either/or thinking, which upholds that one parent is right and the other is wrong, allows them to save face with their partner and almost inevitably results in their collaborating to build a new solution (De Jong & Berg 2002).

Phase 6 Notice and highlight progress In the next review meeting, begin with the question, ‘What’s better/different since last time we spoke?’ This conveys confidence that those involved have the skills to have taken some steps towards improving their life (De Jong & Berg 2002). Do not ask if they performed the task they generated at the last meeting, because if they have not, they will be embarrassed or


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


65

despondent. Besides, the task is irrelevant if they came up with a different strategy altogether or improvements are happening anyway. Those involved could report that there has been some improvement, no change, a deterioration in the child’s behaviour, or different members could have mixed opinions. In a process represented by the acronym EARS, you need to elicit exceptions, amplify these, reinforce (celebrate) their successes and start again by asking about other exceptions (De Jong & Berg 2002). When eliciting exceptions, it is crucial to notice even those changes that do not appear to be related to the problem or its solution. Each improvement needs to be appreciated for its own sake, not just as a step towards further advances. Next, highlight (or amplify) these changes, investigating the ripple effect that they have wrought on others (Sklare 2005). To reinforce these effects, highlight the skills that students or their parents have used to bring them about, not out of any attempt to flatter them but in an effort to help them recognise their own skills. One technique that is termed ‘positive blame’ can use the same kinds of questions employed to explore exceptions, such as, ‘How did you get that to happen?… Where did you get such a useful idea?… What did you tell yourself that helped you do that?… Is that something different for you?’ (Kral & Kowalski 1989). Further reinforcement can be achieved by asking, ‘What does that tell you about yourself?’ (as described earlier). Finally, you can help those involved to recognise additional changes through questions such as, ‘What else is better?… What else have you done to be friendly to the other children?’ or by mentioning what you have noticed. When there appears to all those involved to have been no change, or even a deterioration in the problem, you will need to listen to their despondency. Having acknowledged their discouragement, you can then compare bad days with worse days and ask what creates the difference (McLeod 1989); ask resiliency questions such as how come they have not given up, what keeps them hanging in there and trying, or how come the problem is no worse than it is. If you have not already done so, it could help to externalise or reframe the problem in order to generate a new view of it that will suggest how it can change (see the sections below). When parents’ progress reports are mixed, with one reporting improvement while another is still pessimistic, begin by highlighting the improvements. This can help sceptics to rise above their pessimism. At the same time, however, acknowledge their caution, agreeing that it is only sensible, given how long they have been battling the problem.

Phase 7 Develop a plan to maintain progress Relapses are so common as to be predictable. One specific way to reduce the chances that students’ old habits take hold again is to engage as wide


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

66


an audience as possible in celebrating and supporting their successes. This is especially important within schools, where teachers’ or peers’ scepticism can make it difficult for students to overcome their negative reputation. One way to do this is to formulate lists, charts, diaries, letters, certificates of achievement, art or poetry to document their progress. With their consent, you could circulate these to selected readers such as their parents, the principal, or other teachers, as appropriate. The most important audience, however, will be the students themselves. Whereas conversations are ephemeral, documents endure and can be used to reaffirm students’ successes at times when they are discouraged (Fox 2003). A crucial means for maintaining progress is to develop with the student and parents ahead of time a plan for coping with obstacles and any new or unfamiliar experiences that might flow from an improvement in their problem (Murphy 2006). This helps them to be realistic about the work ahead of them and prevents their being caught off guard by unforeseen challenges (Sklare 2005). For example, you might have to ask whether their new behaviour will disrupt their friendship groupings and, if so, how they could deal with that. In order to avoid despondency at relapses, you can describe these as ways that the problem tests them to see if they can ‘get back on track’; alternatively, you could frame setbacks as providing new information about the tricks and tactics the problem uses to take over their lives (Morgan 1999). Next, you can remind those involved of the strategies that they originally used to overcome the problem and encourage them to resume using those (Kowalski 1990). An alternative perspective is that even a failure contains a partial success. When the alcoholic who is trying to be abstinent takes six drinks, she used a strategy not to have a seventh; when a student has been verbally abusive towards a peer or teacher, you can ask what he did to stop himself lashing out physically as well. When students are deeply discouraged, you could try coping questions such as, ‘What have you done since this happened to calm yourself down?… How did you find the courage to come and speak with me about this?… On a scale of one to 10, how badly did you feel at the time? How does that compare with how you feel now?… What did you do to bring about that improvement?’ This highlights that, even in the face of failure, they are still using some skills to recover from setbacks.

View problems differently So far, I have described solution-focused methods that aim to do things differently. Sometimes, this has to be enabled by first viewing them


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


67

differently. This involves either thinking about problems in new ways so that they become solvable, or externalising problems. This is a process of naming them as though they were a separate entity, so that those experiencing them no longer have to be oppressed by their own supposed deficiencies. They can distance themselves to some extent from the problem.

Reframe your understanding of the problem The technique of reframing is based on the notion that your response to students’ behaviour will depend on what you think causes it. The fact that your responses are not working suggests that perhaps your explanation of the behaviour is not helping. Like taking a different route when a roadblock prevents access to your destination, reframing suggests thinking about problems in a new way so that you can take a different route to solving them. It follows the advice of Einstein (in de Shazer 1993, p. 84), who observed, ‘You cannot solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that has created the problem’. In a reference to how an old painting can look quite different in a revitalised picture frame, changing how you interpret or view a problem is termed developing a reframe. Reframing is performed in the following steps. Step 1. Describe what is occurring. Describe the problem. You can reflect on what a video camera would capture if it were focused on incidents. Step 2. Describe present corrective attempts. Describe who gets involved in trying to correct the behaviour and what their responses entail. Identify the usual effects of these measures. Step 3. Identify your present explanation for the behaviour. Explanations that do not work usually comprise one of two themes. The first is that students are ‘doing it deliberately’ (perhaps even ‘to get at you’). This interpretation is usually employed when young people are aggressive or lack remorse for their antisocial behaviour (Morgenson 1989). Teachers typically find such attitudes intolerable and feel victimised, angry and frustrated by the behaviour (Amatea & Sherrard 1989). In response, they use a range of escalating punishments which, although different on the face of it, all have the same intent of forcing students to cease their behaviour. The second belief – namely, that students cannot help themselves – is most common with passive behaviours such as mood disturbances, phobic reactions or learning disabilities (Amatea & Sherrard 1989), and when students seem remorseful about their behaviour (Morgenson 1989). Although apparently more sympathetic than thinking of students


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

68


as malevolent (‘bad’), viewing them as incompetent (‘mad’) helps little. When students believe that they are helpless, they do not attempt to take charge of the problem; when you believe they are helpless, you will be too permissive, alternated with frustration and exasperated demands that they ‘pull their socks up’. Neither response will be effective, as students alternate between feeling so comfortable that they are not motivated to change and feeling victimised and misunderstood, against which they rebel. Step 4. Generate a new explanation. A new view of the problem will be based on the recognition that human beings are rational – that is, they act in ways that they expect will meet their needs. Therefore, it can be assumed that the behaviour is having some positive effect in their lives. The task at this stage, then, is to identify that positive effect in order to describe the purpose of the behaviour in a new way that, in turn, will imply a new response to it. For example, when students experience anxiety about coming to school, a deficit view might regard them as emotionally fragile or immature, when a reframe of the same behaviours could be that they are trying to look after stressed parents by staying home with them. As long as this fits the perceptions of those experiencing the problem, this view transforms children from being seen as immature to seeing them as exercising too much responsibility. When you are generating this new explanation, keep in mind that you cannot read minds and therefore cannot diagnose the intention behind others’ behaviour: you are simply looking for its effect. When the reframe that you generate does not correspond with everyone’s experience of the problem, it simply signals the need to generate another hypothesis about the possible effect of the behaviour. Step 5. Change how you respond. The new view of the problem will enable you to let go of an ineffective solution and try something else (Fisch et al. 1982). Now that you have identified (in step 4) the effect of the behaviour, the aim of your modified responses to it will be to allow students to meet their need, but in a less disruptive fashion.

Externalise the problem Individuals’ entire image of themselves can become saturated with examples of their problem behaviour. Thus defined as defective, they have no confidence that they can do anything to overcome the problem. One way to turn around this helplessness is to avoid locating blame within individuals, by giving the problem a name and speaking about it as if it were its own entity that was external to them. Narrative therapy calls this externalising. It can be particularly useful when the problem seems to have a life of its own, or when those involved report feeling helpless


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


69

to control it. Together with the young person and parents, generate a name for the problem, using their language or having them select from a list of potential labels that you propose, such as calling outbursts of anger ‘Temper’, ‘Trouble’ or ‘the Rage’; sadness might be labelled as ‘the Misery’; for those with concentration difficulties, it could be that ‘Squirmies’ make it difficult for them to listen, for example (Huntley 1999). Sometimes these problems have allies that team up with them and cause further oppression, such as self-doubt or self-criticism (Morgan 2000) which, for younger children, you might label ‘Name-calling’. Your questions then become, ‘How do you feel when Rage pushes you around and gets you into trouble?… Do you think that’s fair?… Would you like to tame Temper so that it stops bossing you around?’ and so on. Next, enquire what tactics the problem uses: ‘How does it speak to you: does it shout at you or only whisper nasty things in your ear about how hopeless you are? What sorts of things does it tell you?’ You could then ask students how they feel about the influence of the problem and the strategies it uses to maintain its hold over them. You might also ask what they could possibly have done to deserve being spoken to in that way, and querying whether it is fair that the problem uses these tactics to take the fun out of life. Such questions will get them in touch with their motivation to reduce the impact of the problem on their lives. Once students express a desire to conquer or tame their problem, you might suggest some specific skills and strategies they can use. These could include employing constructive self-talk to weaken the influence of the problem when it is trying to divert them from their goal, or teaching emotional regulation or conflict management skills so that they do not inflame peer conflicts, for example.

Solution-focused consultation Consultation in schools is a voluntary and active process whereby one professional with specialist knowledge (often a special educator, educational psychologist, social worker or the like) assists another with generalist knowledge (i.e. a teacher) to plan a program or intervention for individual students (Friend & Cook 2007). In teachers’ interactions with consultants, the parent-driven style becomes teacher-driven. That is to say, the classroom teacher employs the consultant for his or her specialist knowledge and, therefore, is the one who drives their interaction. The consultant is accountable to the teacher and responsible for suggesting appropriate and feasible solutions (Friend & Cook 2007), which requires familiarity with the teacher’s setting and its constraints. For their part,


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

70


teachers will also be responsible for generating potential solutions, while having the ultimate authority to determine which are practicable in their classrooms. They are also expected to be open to being innovative and incorporating adjustments to their practices, which is more likely when they are extremely knowledgeable about curriculum and pedagogy, are student-centred in their teaching, and able to reflect on whether their teaching is achieving their goals for students’ engagement and outcomes (Brownell et al. 2006). The typical expectation of consultants in schools is that they adopt a clinical style of assessment to diagnose a cause for children’s school-based difficulties, in order to generate a prescription detailing what teachers and parents can do about it (Wagner & Gillies 2001). However, this can degenerate into the administration of increasingly detailed assessments to discover more and more obscure names for conditions that ultimately prove to be untreatable. Meanwhile, teachers are frustrated by the delay in gaining the support and advice they need. Furthermore, this approach represents a top-down rather than collaborative style, which violates the basic tenets of a parent-driven approach. It fails to respect the wisdom and expertise of teachers. Instead, a solution-oriented assessment involving observation of students will not yield a ‘laundry list’ of what is going wrong, but will examine exceptions to the problem and what brings those about (McGlone 2001). Subsequent consultative problem solving with teachers will begin in the same way as any solution-building approach: it will start with listening to their concerns and asking in what ways they hope the consultation will be useful. Goals are clarified by asking what they want to see changed (perhaps employing the miracle question), and enquiring who will be doing what differently when the miracle has eventuated. Next follows an examination of what is working. This gives the consultant an opportunity to reflect to the student, parents and teacher what his or her observations indicate that they are each doing to enable those exceptions. This focuses the discussion on what they have done previously that has worked. Useful questions include, ‘When faced with this kind of behaviour before, what did you do that worked?… What effects did you notice?… How do you explain those?… How could you do that again?’ (Wagner & Gillies 2001). The consultant would then ask all those involved to rate the difficulty (on a scale of 1 to 10). The discussion can close on the following questions (Wagner & Gillies 2001, p. 156): • • • •

How close are we to making a plan? What else do we need to consider? What would it take to put these ideas into action? If you were to do this as an experiment, what would you do?


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


71

In the period between consultations, teachers can experiment with new ways of responding to the student’s problem and notice exceptions, observing what they and the student are doing differently when these occur. As with parents, guided by the acronym EARS, subsequent consultations will elicit the exceptions, amplify changes, reinforce these and start on the next problem, if necessary (Wagner & Gillies 2001, p. 157).

Referrals No one knows everything about everything, even within his or her field of expertise. Furthermore, a teacher’s role is typically not one of counselling students or their parents. Therefore, on occasion it will be necessary to refer parents to specialist counsellors. In order to do so, you will need to find out about available services, including details of waiting time, costs and contact phone numbers. The more specific your information, the easier it will be for parents to follow up your concerns promptly.

Conclusion The parent-driven and solution-focused approaches share the view that the most potent source of information for problem solving is students and parents themselves. They know more about their lives than outsiders ever will. Thus, in contrast to approaches in which the practitioner is the hero and those with problems are regarded as fragile and ineffective, the solution-focused approach chooses to see young people, their parents and teachers as the heroes in their own story, the creators of their own solutions (Murphy & Duncan 1997). Nevertheless, as Murphy and Duncan (1997, p. 49) observe, this positive focus: does not mean that the practitioner ignores suffering or assumes a pollyannish, ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ attitude, but rather that he or she listens to the whole story: the confusion and the clarity, the suffering and the endurance, the pain and the coping, the desperation and the desire.

Distilled down to its simplest notions, solution-focused approaches advise that when present solutions are not working, you either view something differently or do something differently (Murphy & Duncan 1997). Viewing differently encompasses noticing non-problems (exceptions) as well as the problems, externalising or reframing problems; while doing something differently obeys the maxims (de Shazer et al. 1986, p. 212): If something works, do more of it. (Look for exceptions.) If something isn’t working, stop it. (Do less of the same.) If something isn’t working, do something else. (Do something different.)


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

72


Additional resources Solution-focused approach Berg, I.K. & Steiner, S. (2003). Children’s solution work. New York: Norton. De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (2002). Interviewing for solutions. (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson. Durrant, M. (1995). Creative strategies for school problems. Epping, NSW: Eastwood Family Therapy Centre/New York: Norton. Murphy, J.J. (2006). Solution-focused counseling in middle and high schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Selekman, M.D. (1997). Solution-focused therapy with children: Harnessing family strengths for systemic change. New York: Guilford. Sklare, G.B. (2005). Brief counseling that works: A solution-focused approach for school counselors and administrators. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Narrative therapy Freeman, J., Epston, D. & Lobovits, D. (1997). Playful approaches to serious problems: Narrative therapy with children and their families. New York: Norton. Morgan, A. (Ed.) (1999). Once upon a time… Narrative therapy with children and their families. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications. Morgan, A. (2000) What is narrative therapy?: An easy-to-read introduction. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications. Winslade, J. & Monk, G. (1999). Narrative counseling in schools: Powerful and brief. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Websites Brief Family Therapy Center, United States: http://www.brief-therapy.org Brief Therapy Institute of Sydney, Australia: http://www.brieftherapy sydney.com.au SYCOL, Solution-oriented training, United Kingdom: http://www.sycol. co.uk United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice: http://www. ukasfp.co.uk


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

Part II Problem solving with parents Parents look for two sets of qualities in their children’s teachers or other professional advisers (Summers et al. 2005). The first is that they want you to be competent in working with their children. They want their children to be happy at school and, to that end, value teachers acting professionally but also in ways that protect, nurture and encourage their children (Roffey 2002). When parents see you being superb at what they are employing you to do – namely, teaching their children – they will support you. Beyond this, when children have additional needs or challenges such as those examined in Part II of this text, being competent calls on you not only to be an excellent teacher, but also skilled at problem solving. Although this may sound daunting, it does not mean that you have to find the solutions yourself; merely that you know where to look for these. The second set of skills parents look for in their children’s teachers is to be respectful and supportive of themselves (Summers et al. 2005). To help you satisfy these two requirements, this section provides some background information about the challenge under discussion and then describes the needs of parents and how you can meet these, much of which involves providing for their child’s requirements. In those instances where it is not your role to meet certain needs yourself, it can be useful to recommend other agencies that can. Ultimately, your success in solving students’ problems will reduce the need for ongoing problem solving with their parents.


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

5

Collaborating with parents of children with disabilities or chronic illnesses

It is not just, as some assume, that one should fit the intervention to the child, but rather that one should fit the intervention to the goal. Jordan (2004, p. 4)

The inclusion of children with disabilities in regular education is not constrained by teachers’ willingness or attitude to disability, but by the availability of resources for meeting students’ additional needs. A majority of teachers believe that inclusive settings can benefit students both with and without disabilities, but they also believe that there is limited capacity to adjust teaching procedures, particularly in high schools (Scruggs & Mastropieri 1996). The more severe a child’s disability, the less support both parents and teachers believe there is to ensure inclusion and the less confident they are of its benefits both for students with disabilities and their peers (Hanson et al. 2001; Scruggs & Mastropieri 1996). Not surprisingly, therefore, throughout their schooling students with significant disabilities come to be placed in increasingly segregated settings as their academic capacities and consequent requirements for curricular adjustments become more discrepant from those of their typically developing peers (Hanson et al. 2001; Hughes & May 1988). Against this background, collaborating with parents whose children have additional needs will require you to be sensitive to their reactions to disability and to the services they require.

Parents’ reactions to their child’s disability A few decades ago, research on parents whose children had disabilities commonly reported higher parental stress levels and increased marital strain. More recent research, however, is reporting that these parents experience the same variety of life events and adjustment issues as all others. This improvement over time in parents’ adjustment has been attributed to

75


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

76


increased social tolerance of diversity and improved services for children with additional needs (Seltzer et al. 2001). Thus, parents’ reactions that were once thought to be about their child’s disability itself were in large part frustration, hurt and anger at a lack of appropriate services.

Stress It is likely that stress is cyclical and transitory for these parents, just as it is for any others. The nature of the disability may be less relevant than whether it is accompanied by behavioural difficulties and low levels of adaptive skills – that is, whether the child has high caretaking needs (Baker et al. 2002; Fox et al. 2002; Hodapp, Fidler & Smith 1998a; Roach, Orsmond & Barratt 1999; Scorgie, Wilgosh & McDonald 1998; Stores et al. 1998; Suarez & Baker 1997; Turnbull & Ruef 1996; Williford et al. 2007). Especially when their child’s behaviour is unpredictable, it limits many other aspects of family functioning, such as their recreational or social outings. Sometimes a disability such as Down syndrome can create less public embarrassment than one that is less obvious, such as autism. And, although we might assume that parents are more stressed when their children have severe disabilities, having these disabilities more readily diagnosed can save them much uncertainty and worry (Siklos & Kerns 2007). Research shows that, despite the higher caretaking needs of many children with disabilities, fathers’ involvement increases little to compensate (Roach et al. 1999), leaving mothers disproportionately taking on the extra demands (Bright & Wright 1986). This exacerbates mothers’ physical and emotional health difficulties, restricts their working opportunities, and negatively affects their marital satisfaction (Roach et al. 1999). As with all families, stress can come from outside sources, not just from the children. Families whose children have disabilities are as various as all others, with some enduring poverty and other life challenges. The combination of their circumstances and a child’s disability can magnify the effects of each, however. For example, children’s additional needs can require extra costs, which can put strain on impoverished families. At the same time, the working life of parents whose children have additional needs can be repeatedly disrupted by the need to attend medical and other appointments. Consequently, mothers tend to work fewer hours or not at all (Barnett & Boyce 1995; Seltzer et al. 2001). Although the choice to surrender their career ambitions is voluntary and in midlife mothers are satisfied with their choice to do so (Seltzer et al. 2001), this is still a loss to them personally and leaves the family with restricted finances at the same time as having additional expenses, only a portion of which will be offset by welfare benefits. Mothers whose infants have high care needs also find it difficult to secure high-quality child care that can provide for their children’s additional


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


77

needs and, when they do, there can be extra travel to their selected service and frequent changes of care arrangements (Booth & Kelly 1999; Knoche et al. 2006; Warfield & Hauser-Cram 1996). The lack of suitable child care affects mothers’ prospects of returning to work, with 56 per cent working outside of home, compared with 76 per cent of mothers of typically developing children (Roach et al. 1999).

Parenting skills Particularly when their children have significant behavioural difficulties, parents’ physical energies can be drained by relentless demands and the need for constant vigilance, or ‘being on call 24 hours a day’ (Fox et al. 2002; McKenzie 1994; Turnbull & Ruef 1996; Webster-Stratton & Spitzer 1996). As is true for all families, over and above major stressors, daily hassles combined with depleted resources will lead to strain (Smith, Oliver & Innocenti 2001). In reverse, irritable parenting associated with high parental stress levels contributes to children’s escalating behavioural problems over time, both for children with and without disabilities (Baker et al. 2003; Belsky, Hsieh & Crnic 1998; Dallaire & Weinraub 2005; Donovan, Leavitt & Walsh 2000; Hastings & Rubin 1999; Kilgore, Snyder & Lentz 2000; Meyers 1999; Nix et al. 1999; O’Leary, Slep & Reid 1999; Shaw et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2004, Snyder et al. 2005; Stoolmiller 2001).

Emotional wellbeing Decreased confidence in their parenting skills and a heightened sense of restrictions on their functioning contribute to reduced emotional satisfaction for parents whose children have disabilities, but typically within the normal range for the population in general (Roach et al. 1999). Although some parents of children with disabilities show elevated rates of depression (McCarthy et al. 2006; Roach et al. 1999), others do not (Scott et al. 1997). In the long term, their emotional wellbeing is indistinguishable from parents in the general community (Seltzer et al. 2001).

Marital satisfaction One study reported a doubling of marital separation in families whose child has a disability (Fujiura 1998). Others report similar levels of marital satisfaction between these and all other families (McCarthy et al. 2006; Stoneman & Gavidia-Payne 2006).

Grief Parents may discover their child’s disability before or at birth, gradually in later years when their child’s development does not proceed as expected,


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

78


or suddenly when their child acquires a disability from an acute illness or trauma. An unanticipated disability may be met with feelings of loss, although parents who have their child’s disability confirmed after a long period of concern can sometimes be relieved to finally achieve some understanding of their child’s atypical development or behaviours (Fox et al. 2002; Whitehead & Gosling 2003). In my experience, having a clear diagnosis helps parents to understand their child’s needs and to predict some of the decisions they will need to make in the future. This might explain why parents whose children have Down syndrome report lower stress levels than those with less predictable disabilities (Scott et al. 1997). Parents with a diagnosis can access information and may even have a dedicated agency that they can consult for support. However, in over half of instances, no clear cause for a child’s disability will be found, while other children will have multiple disabilities that result in their ‘falling through the cracks’ as each agency defines them as ineligible for a service because of their dual or multiple diagnoses.

Satisfaction Parents of children with disabilities typically experience the same satisfaction and joy at their child’s achievements as felt by all other parents (Baker et al. 2002; Glidden, Valliere & Herbert 1988; Grant et al. 1998; Mullins 1987; Sandler & Mistretta 1998; Stainton & Besser 1998; Turnbull, Guess & Turnbull 1988; Turnbull et al. 2006). Many also identify some additional gains, including: •

• •

personal gains such as awareness of their personal strengths, increased tolerance of diversity, increased knowledge and intellectual stimulation from learning skills to parent their child, the impetus to gain formal education in disability, adjustment of their personal priorities and increased spirituality parenting gains including greater understanding of, and responsiveness towards, their child social benefits spanning new opportunities to meet other parents or disability workers, strengthening of their family relationships, appreciation of the resources in their marriage, renewed closeness as a family and appreciating supportive networks within the community (Meyer 1993; Pakenham, Sofronoff & Samios 2004; Sandler & Mistretta 1998).

Almost all parents would do anything to protect their children from harm. These parents’ inability to do so creates a searing pain that prevents their ‘acceptance’ of (if this is defined as ‘not minding’) their child’s restrictions. However, in time, they do adjust in the dual senses of finding happiness and satisfaction and being able to balance their child’s additional needs with meeting their own personal needs, satisfying the requirements


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


79

of other family members and maintaining social relationships beyond the family.

Services sought by parents For most parents, the first awareness that their child is not developing typically often ushers in a long cycle of receiving troubling information about their child (Fox et al. 2002). Even the assessment process itself can be gruelling, with one study of parents whose children had autism finding that half were dissatisfied with the assessment process. Attaining a diagnosis required them to confer with, on average, over four separate professionals, with five per cent of parents consulting more than 10 (Siklos & Kerns 2007). Parents’ frustration at their struggle to achieve a diagnosis and secure services can spill over into their initial interactions with each new practitioner they meet. Like all parents of younger children, those whose child has a disability are excited at the prospect of starting school, but it is also a stressful time (Bentley-Williams & Butterfield 1996). Parents and children have to leave familiar programs and staff and accept that, at school, there is generally less opportunity for their involvement (Bentley-Williams & Butterfield 1996; Fowler, Schwartz & Atwater 1991; Hadden & Fowler 1997). They can also experience renewed grief that early intervention has not ameliorated their child’s difficulties. Like all parents, they have to adjust to the notion that no school is going to provide all that their child requires. However, there is likely to be an even greater than usual disparity between their child’s additional needs and the schooling options that are available. By high school age, the caretaking demands of young people with significant disabilities decrease compared with when they were younger, but nevertheless are considerably higher than is expected for adolescents without disabilities (Haveman et al. 1997). Parents’ awareness of limited supports in adolescence and adulthood, combined with their son’s or daughter’s diminished academic progress and lack of independence cause them to be less optimistic about their children’s future than is the case for young people without disabilities (Whitney-Thomas & Hanley-Maxwell 1996). On the other hand, by the time their children reach adolescence, parents are experienced at parenting and navigating the service system (Hughes & May 1988). Their successes will have given them confidence. Their goals may be less ambitious and by now they are more likely to be ‘taking one day at a time’ (Hughes & May 1988). Alternatively, exhaustion may have set in. They may have passively resigned themselves to the limited services that are available to their child (Hughes & May 1988). These competing effects have been termed the ‘wear and tear’ effects.


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM

80


Choice of type and level of engagement Chapter 1 described how a formal teaching role can detract from parents’ duties and obligations to themselves, their partner and other children. In formalising instruction to children with disabilities, parents and children may miss out on the informal and uniquely personal qualities of parenting, and may raise parents’ stress levels (Harris & McHale 1989; Seligman & Darling 1997) with little developmental gain for the children themselves (Ramey & Ramey 1992; White et al. 1992). Also, as mentioned earlier, children’s behavioural difficulties and parents’ preference that their children have relaxation time, can cause parents not to want to deliver formal instruction at home. Others – such as single parents – may not have the resources, especially time, to do so (Schilling et al. 1986). Thus, while some parents choose to conduct training at home, those who do not wish to do so can be reassured that it is usually unnecessary; how parents interact with their child is more important than what they teach him or her. Children and their parents benefit more from guidance to recognise and respond to their children’s atypical modes of communication than from delivering formal instruction (Guralnick 1991; Kim & Mahoney 2005).

Information sharing Parents want their children’s teachers to be receptive to information they want to share about their child’s history and present needs, without becoming defensive (Ryndak et al. 1996). They need you to be interested in learning about interventions that have been tried to date and the effects of these (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005). Whereas teachers and therapists can change year by year, parents have ongoing experience with their child and therefore bring with them considerable expertise in their child’s needs and how best to meet these. They also have extensive knowledge about disability services that could support their child’s schooling. Their information can be particularly useful when their child’s condition is less common and thus unfamiliar to you. Parents also need their child’s teachers and other professionals to be a source of information for them on a range of issues, as listed in Box 5.1. The relevance of these topics changes as children age, with parents of young children usually being in most need of information about their child’s atypical needs and available resources. Parents having ongoing needs for feedback about their child’s progress at school (Hadden & Fowler 1997; Westling 1996). This can be a delicate issue. While you must preserve their hope by reporting that their child is progressing, you cannot imply that his or her skills are approaching


15/1/08 11:47:38 AM


81

Box 5.1 Information sought by parents whose children have disabilities Parents tend to want information about: • their child’s disability and additional needs • their emotional reactions and that of other family members • typical and atypical child development • how to recognise and respond to any atypical cues that their child uses to communicate with them • their child’s learning characteristics and future potential or prognosis • how to support their child at home • how to play with their child at home • how to foster their child’s social inclusion at school and in the wider community • strategies for fostering their child’s functioning in everyday settings • the range of available services such as respite care, relevant extracurricular activities, financial assistance, schooling options • behavioural guidance strategies, including responding to their child and onlookers in public • parent support groups Sources: Bailey et al. 1999; Mahoney et al. 1999; Westling & Plaute 1999

normality if they are not. In such cases, you might find it useful to say something such as, ‘James is communicating more clearly now, and uses a number of new words. This is a big advance on last year, when he was saying very little. His skills then were near a two-year level. Now they are closer to three years’ (say, when James is aged six).

Participation in planning Many parents want to be able to choose their children’s programs (Freeman, Alkin & Kasari 1999; Westling 1996; Westling & Plaute 1999). But when it comes to planning interventions, the core difference between parents and teachers is that parents are considering their child’s needs over his or her entire life span, whereas school-based professionals tend to focus solely on the child’s current or forthcoming school year (Bennett et al. 1998). Although Australia and other countries have adopted some of the procedures required under United States legislation, individualised education planning (IEP) meetings that are intended to include parents on


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

82


an equal basis still tend to be dominated by the professionals. One study observed that during these meetings teachers talked for up to 60 per cent of the time and parents and students only 18 per cent (Martin et al. 2006). Aside from this imbalance, some parents experience the planning process as daunting rather than empowering, as they find themselves facing a bevy of professionals and a barrage of advice, along with the expectation that they will make a prudent decision based on incomplete understanding of the information being conveyed. Also, the formality of the meeting and the need to cover so much at once can unintentionally leave parents feeling overwhelmed. To avoid this, prepare parents in advance for meetings and listen to them so that their agenda drives the meeting, rather than topics for discussion being determined by the professionals. One strategy to avoid overwhelming parents with new information is to record the meeting by video or audio tape. This way, they can review the meeting later, or an absent parent can see or hear the conversation. Alternatively, send minutes of the meeting to parents so they can review the discussion and perhaps meet with you later to follow up any unresolved issues. As children leave the early childhood years, their presence at planning meetings can be beneficial and is a simple matter of inclusion and courtesy. When they attend planning meetings, the conversation tends to be less deficit-oriented and more respectful (Martin, Marshall & Sale 2004), which honours both them and their parents. Nevertheless, even more so than their parents, students may need you to prepare them for meetings and encourage them to speak on their own behalf (Martin et al. 2004, 2006).

Assessment Parents whose children’s disabilities were diagnosed in early childhood will be familiar with many terms relating to their child’s condition, but when the disability is just being recognised, you will need to be sensitive to parents’ understandings of the terms professionals use. Once, when I reported to a mother that her child had an intellectual disability, she expressed relief that her daughter was not retarded! Thus, it pays to avoid jargon and to define those terms that you cannot avoid (Turnbull et al. 2006). Most parents want assessments to be comprehensive, without sole reliance on testing. It can be difficult for children to display their optimal skills in a formal setting (McKenzie 1993; Ryndak et al. 1996). When children receive a wider-ranging assessment in which their parents have been active participants, they are more likely to understand and endorse both the assessment process and the recommendations that arise from it. Even so, while their estimations of their children’s abilities and needs


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


83

generally tally with teachers’, parents might nonetheless resist a particular diagnosis, as they regard their child as a whole person who is more complex than a single label may suggest (Harry 1992).

Choice of educational placement Parents want their children’s curriculum to be tailored to their needs and to be challenging, with relevant specialist services provided (Hodapp, Freeman & Kasari 1998b; Ryndak et al. 1996). Many share teachers’ hesitations about whether this can be delivered in a regular placement. Some prefer inclusive settings for reasons of convenience, the availability of positive role models in general settings, socialisation benefits and, in the case of children with less severe disabilities, for the extra educational challenge (Bennett, DeLuca & Burns 1997; Freeman et al. 1999; Guralnick, Connor & Hammond 1995; Hodapp et al. 1998b; Ryndak et al. 1996). Yet, parents also share educators’ cautions about the constraints on teachers’ ability to meet students’ additional needs. These constraints may include large class sizes, unavailability of specialist services and teachers’ limited training and experience with disability (Bennett et al. 1998; Hanson et al. 2001; Scruggs & Mastropieri 1996). For these reasons, some parents judge that their children’s educational needs are best met in segregated settings in which, they believe, their children can be adequately resourced and receive individualised programs in a physically and emotionally safe environment (Bentley-Williams & Butterfield 1996; Hanline & Halvorsen 1989; Hodapp et al. 1998b; McWilliam et al. 1995; Palmer, BorthwickDuffy & Widaman 1998a; Palmer et al. 1998b; Ryndak et al. 1996; Westling 1996).

Social support for children Parents whose children are in inclusive settings realise that co-location alone is insufficient for friendships to develop. While many children with significant disabilities are accepted by their able peers, over one quarter are rejected and a greater number still are neglected or ignored (Odom et al. 1999, 2006). Their isolation comes about because, even compared with younger children of an equivalent developmental level, those with intellectual disabilities lack the cognitive and metacognitive skills necessary to read social cues and to instigate and maintain peer relationships. As a result, they interact less frequently, initiate fewer and less successful interactions with peers, respond less to approaches from peers and take the lead less often in play (Brown et al. 1999; Guralnick & Groom 1987; Hanline 1993; Hanson et al. 1998; Odom et al. 1999; Reynolds & Holdgrafer 1998).


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

84


Social isolation is not universal across disability categories, however. For example, children with physical disabilities appear to be well understood, accepted and included in the play of young non-disabled children (Okagaki et al. 1998). Students whose intellectual skills are close to those of their peers and who possess social problem solving and emotion regulation skills are typically well accepted by their classmates (Odom et al. 2006). Given that all parents want their child to be happy at school, the parents of socially isolated children will want you to take active steps to facilitate their child’s social inclusion (Palmer et al. 1998a; Ryndak et al. 1996). This can involve intervening with the dynamics of a group, or coaching children with disabilities in problem solving and self-regulation skills, for example. It can also be necessary to teach them specific play skills (e.g. kicking a ball) needed for activities that their peers enjoy at recess times.

Direct therapy services To that end, access to direct therapy (e.g. physiotherapy or occupational therapy) can be beneficial. The skills that are targeted for such therapy need to be embedded in the children’s daily life and be relevant to the quality of life of both the child and family (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005). Therefore, therapists need your guidance about which skills will most help particular students to function academically and socially at school, with parents providing similar advice about the skills their children need in the home and community settings.

Social support for parents During the school years, a fundamental need for parents of children with disabilities can be social support (Lin 2000). Their child’s disruptive behaviours and other challenges can restrict parents’ access to social and recreational activities in the community (Fox et al. 2002). They tend to have a smaller circle of friends, although the quality of their social relationships seems unimpaired and parents report satisfaction from the relationships that they do have (Seltzer et al. 2001). However, in schools, parents whose children have additional needs tend to be isolated from other parents unless educators specifically foster interactions between them (Hanson et al. 1998; Winton 1993). Most parents will be polite, but as children with disabilities may not be invited to social events such as birthday parties, neither will their parents have these occasions to make contact with the wider parent group (Bennett et al. 1998). Some parents can be reluctant to ask about a child’s condition or are afraid of saying the wrong thing, and therefore avoid parents whose


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


85

child has a disability. Those whose children are recipients of aggression from a child with a disability may be protective and actively reject both the child and parent.

Advocacy Many parents will feel that they are ‘just’ a parent, while others will realise that if they do not speak up for their child, no one will (Fox et al. 2002). Many of these parents will be their child’s advocates. In other circumstances, your position ‘on the inside’ can make you a useful ally: to deflect criticism from your colleagues that can arise when parents are active in advocating for their child (Bennett et al. 1997), in advocating on their behalf for particular services within or beyond your school (Hanson et al. 2001), or being an ally for parents during planning meetings that otherwise they might find overwhelming. Parents find that having an advocate within the system amplifies their own voices and adds an objective view to their personal perspective on their child’s needs (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005).

Transition planning Times of transition from one class or school to another can affirm to parents their child’s difference (Hanline 1993) and therefore can arouse renewed anxiety, sadness or stress (Seligman & Darling 1997; Wolery 1989). The concern may not necessarily be about their child’s disability as such, but about the ability of a new service to cater adequately for the child’s needs. Children’s eligibility for services can be in doubt until the last minute, while transitions might not occur at the same ages as for able children, making it difficult for parents to fully prepare for changes in advance. Moreover, not only does their child change placement, but so do the parents, who have to abandon one set of advisers whom they know in favour of another that is unfamiliar (Bentley-Williams & Butterfield 1996; Fowler et al. 1991; Hadden & Fowler 1997). In order for parents to plan for their son’s or daughter’s next placement, they will need information well in advance about the transition process and their child’s future options (Fowler et al. 1991; Hanline 1993). You will need to listen to their concerns and aspirations for the next placement. You will also need to be clear with them, however, if a service that they want is not available, because it does not benefit them if you promise something that subsequently is not provided. Lacking appropriate services is one thing, but feeling let down will disillusion, alienate and even enrage parents. Part of your joint planning, then, might be to develop a plan for bridging gaps in services.


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

86


Respite care Respite care is one of the most requested services by families, especially when their children have behavioural difficulties (Hayes 1998; Rimmerman, Kramer & Levy 1989). The use of respite care increases mothers’ feelings of wellbeing and, as a result, has positive effects on the functioning of the family as a whole (Botuck & Winsberg 1991). Hence, some parents will need information about respite care options.

Integration of services The disability service system has been described as ‘discontinuous, inconsistent, redundant, fragmented and disintegrated’ (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005, p. 259). The inefficiency of having to navigate an uncoordinated series of services can be a considerable drain on parents’ energy (McKenzie 1996; Turnbull & Ruef 1996), while a lack of awareness of laws, policies and their rights denies them and their children access to services for which they may be eligible (Kasahara & Turnbull 2005). Integration of services is most necessary during transitions between sequential services such as preschool to school, and for the coordination of simultaneous services. When all involved with a given student have access to the information they need to do their jobs, their work is likely to be more effective, relationships between parents and professionals are improved and parents are more satisfied with services (Dunst & Bruder 2002). Parents’ workloads are reduced, as otherwise they have to be the couriers of information between the professionals (Dunst & Bruder 2002). For this collaboration to occur, both interpersonal and structural resources are needed. At the interpersonal level, trust, sound communication and commitment to collaboration are required. At the structural level, all parties need to be clear about their own and others’ goals, roles and responsibilities; key personnel with the power to make decisions need to be engaged in the process; someone needs to adopt the central role as organiser and coordinator; and there needs to be an efficient method for continuous communication between all those involved (Park & Turnbull 2003). Within a parent-driven model, the obvious candidate to act as coordinator is the parent. However, faced with a lack of insider knowledge about how to access services, a complex service system and the need for prolonged advocacy in the case of children with multiple needs, some parents find a case manager to be an asset (Dinnebeil, Hale & Rule 1999; Kasahara & Turnbull 2005; Westling 1996; Westling & Plaute 1999). Whenever professionals are collaborating, parents need to be able to trust in your discretion (Blue-Banning et al. 2004). Therefore, when meeting with other colleagues or members of a multidisciplinary team,


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


87

it is important that parents are present or they at least receive a copy of any written material. Parents’ presence helps ensure that they know who knows what about them and their child, that the information shared focuses on strengths rather than deficits and that the discussion does not degenerate into gossip about the student or family.

Referral to other services Parents of children with disabilities may require a range of services, some of which will be within your role to deliver while others will require referral to outside agencies – such as therapists, after-school care or extracurricular activities. In order to make appropriate referrals, you will need to know about a range of practitioners, including their location, eligibility criteria, waiting time, costs and contact details. Your group of parents can supplement your own knowledge by nominating services that they have found useful, which you can then collate into a resource list. For extracurricular activities, it can be particularly beneficial to locate a program attended by a student’s classmate, as the children’s contact in two locations can help them to socialise in both (Beckman et al. 1998).

Children living with chronic illness With improved medical technology, many children with formerly lifethreatening illnesses now survive, while those with chronic illnesses can now participate in regular educational settings. This has resulted in around two per cent of the childhood population enduring repeated and chronic bouts of illness (Ashton & Bailey 2004). This includes conditions such as severe allergies, asthma, epilepsy, arthritis, diabetes, meningitis, kidney, liver or heart disease, AIDS and cancer (Shiu 2001, 2004) and, increasingly, health complaints associated with obesity, which will disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged students. Chronic illness has a well-documented effect on young people’s school performance (Boyle et al. 2007), increasing the risk of grade retention or dropping out of school (Cunningham & Wodrich 2006). In contrast, returning to school after a relapse or prolonged illness symbolises normality and hope for the future (Worchel-Prevatt et al. 1998). Achieving this transition can entail: • • •

collaborating with the convalescing student and his or her parents to organise a schedule for the student’s return gaining the information you need to manage the illness and to understand the student’s emotional reactions to it establishing ongoing liaison with the parents and medical personnel


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

88

•

• •


assessing the school environment ahead of time to assess architectural or other constraints to mobility so these can be attended to before the student returns to school arranging for a tutor or other means to assist the student to catch up academically preparing peers for changes in their classmate (Worchel-Prevatt et al. 1998).

Management of illness Your own self-efficacy and duty of care to chronically ill children require that you understand the nature of individual students’ illness and its implications for their education (Ashton & Bailey 2004). Incomplete information can result in unrealistic expectations for students, inadequate educational adjustments, or over- or under-protectiveness by educators (Ashton & Bailey 2004; Cunningham & Wodrich 2006). Therefore, your first task will be to learn from parents and, with their consent, medical personnel about individual students’ condition and its ramifications for their learning. You will also need to gain an understanding of the expected course of the illness over time. In terms of health care, you will need to know whether ill students require monitoring, how to deal with any medical emergencies, what restrictions the illness may place on their activities, what medication or dietary regimes they need to observe and which educational tasks will need to be adjusted to accommodate their condition. Any medication and dietary regimes will need to be integrated unobtrusively into their daily routines, ensuring that these are followed strictly without making a spectacle of them in front of their peers. So that the adults know which procedures to follow, it will be important to prepare all staff and classmates for the possibility of a health crisis in ill students, to have at least one staff member with specialised first aid training, and to have on file the contact details for emergency medical personnel.

Environmental adjustments Health impairments often weaken the body’s immunological system, making children susceptible to other illnesses. Therefore, control of contagious diseases can be crucial. This may mean simply advising parents of chronically ill children that an infection is going around, so that they can decide if it is necessary to withdraw their children from school for the time being. Other environmental adjustments can include adapting equipment so that children whose illnesses produce physical limitations can nevertheless access activities (Shiu 2004).


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


89

Curricular adjustments With the exception of AIDS, most chronic childhood illnesses do not have a direct permanent effect on the brain’s capacity to learn, although fatigue and many conditions such as low blood sugar levels (e.g. associated with Type 1 diabetes mellitus) can temporarily affect students’ cognitive functioning for the duration of the episode (Cunningham & Wodrich 2006). Some medical treatments such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy can themselves cause disabilities and subtle attention, sequencing, memory and sensory integration difficulties, particularly in younger children (Shiu 2001). In addition, children who are unwell produce higher levels of the stress-related hormone, cortisol (Watamura et al. 2003). This can lead to stress reactions when they are exhausted or feel that the demands of their day exceed their capacity to cope. Many convalescing children are anxious about their ability to catch up and keep up with their work, and will need a planned program for doing so (Bessell 2001; Worchel-Prevatt et al. 1998). Although you might be able to send home some learning activities during their absence, the illness can impair their ability to complete these. Upon their return, while extra tutoring may be needed, they can still lack the energy during convalescence to add this into their day. Upon their return, routine procedures will need to be adjusted – for example, you may need to allow a classmate to accompany a student to the school office during a health crisis, or to recognise that some students will need to leave the classroom without seeking permission, so that they can attend to urgent physical care needs (Kliebenstein & Broome 2000). Prohibitions on students’ activities in an effort to keep them safe from further injury or infection not only limit their ability to learn, but also affect their self-esteem (Ashton & Bailey 2004). Therefore, encourage students to be as independent as possible and do not restrict them unless a particular activity poses a clear danger. It is important that, as far as possible, school provides a venue for them to be ‘normal’ and, therefore, does not emphasise their additional needs (Bessell 2001).

Emotional support Children’s misunderstandings of their condition and its treatment, their early encounters with pain and perhaps even the prospect of death can lead to anxieties and fears that surpass those of healthy children (McCarthy 1987). Unwell children may be fearful about the future and be stressed not only from their illness and its treatment but as a result of the observable strain it causes for their family members. Many children will adapt to the demands of their illness and its management, whereas


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

90


those with emotional difficulties may resist the imposition of regimens for its management, placing them at risk for treatment non-compliance that compromises both their health status and school inclusion (Cunningham & Wodrich 2006). Some, therefore, can benefit from opportunities to talk about their experiences. So that you do not confuse them or undermine their parents, you will need to prepare for these inevitable discussions by discovering from parents what their children have been told about their condition and what they would like you to say, particularly with respect to terminal illnesses (McCarthy 1987).

Social inclusion Children’s repeated absences are likely to interrupt and disrupt their peer relationships (Shiu 2001). Half of all children living with chronic illness experience social dislocation, may feel very different from their peers and suffer anxiety about their inclusion on their return to school after prolonged absences (Bessell 2001; Shiu 2004). They may fear their classmates teasing them about changes in their appearance (WorchelPrevatt et al. 1998). To prevent social anxieties, you might be able to coordinate a roster of home visits by some of their classmates during their absences so that they do not feel like outsiders when they return. On their return, peers might need information about the reason for their absence, changed appearance or atypical needs (McCarthy 1987; Tyler & Colson 1994). On the other hand, the students themselves might not want this information disclosed, so that they can be treated as people rather than as patients (Shiu 2001). Not only are chronically ill children’s relationships with peers interrupted, but so too are their contacts with their teachers. As well as sending work home, teachers can ensure ongoing contact by making personal phone calls or emailing students during their absences. Children’s relationships with adults can also be distorted by their experience of relating with medical personnel, which can cause them to direct their social interactions to adults rather than peers. Moreover, the requirements of their management can increase children’s dependency on adults. To offset this tendency, you might have to assist their peer engagement. It will also be important not to make undue allowances for their behaviours, lest their peers interpret this as unfair favouritism and reject them (Norris & Closs 1999).

Support for parents At the time of initial diagnosis, particularly of a potentially life-threatening illness, parents will be in shock, and this may be accompanied by fear and


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


91

a sense of powerlessness. During their child’s chronic illness and treatment, mothers in particular are likely to have their working lives disrupted (Ashton 2004; Vickers, Parris & Bailey 2004). Your understanding of the competing and often overwhelming demands on them may be a considerable help (Vickers et al. 2004). The family’s physical, social, emotional and financial resources may be stretched during their child’s prolonged illness (Dockett 2004) – particularly if other members of the family are also ill (as with AIDS), or when the child’s condition is uncertain or life-threatening (Bruder 1995). Parents have to advocate for their child’s needs. Even if their concerns seem excessive or parents seem to be too protective, trust them. ‘Helicopter parents’ hover over their children because they have a genuine reason to be concerned. Parents are the ones who have to live with the risk, and therefore they are the ones who have to determine how to minimise it (Sanagavarapu 2004).

Communication Communication across the school will be necessary to support classroom teachers and those on duty at recess to be fully informed about courses of action to be taken in the event of a health incident. This communication also reduces the burden on parents to inform each and every staff member who may come into contact with their child, and reduces their anxiety about the care available for their child (Kliebenstein & Broome 2000; Norris & Closs 1999). To reduce the burden on parents, it may be useful to appoint a single influential person within the school who can transmit information from parents to the wider staff team.

Support for staff Particularly when students are left with permanent disabilities or are dying, you will have to look after yourself so that you can channel your grief into making their lives at school as normal and productive as possible.

Communicating with parents of able children Parents of able students have a right to reassurance that a student with high support needs will not require a disproportionate amount of teacher time, resulting in reduced education of their own child. Naturally, you must secure the permission of the parent whose child has additional needs before imparting any information to the other parents. Even then, you will need to decide on a case-by-case basis how much information you should give, as disclosure could create unnecessary anxiety or be construed as a


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

92


tacit invitation for protests (Chandler 1994). Conversely, if you do not discuss the issue with your parent group, some might feel that you are not receptive to their legitimate concerns.

Conclusion Although there are considerable differences between children living with chronic illness and those with disabilities, they have four things in common: first is parental uncertainty about their children’s futures (Norris & Closs 1999). Second, while many are enrolled in regular schools, a substantial proportion of both populations are marginalised or excluded (Norris & Closs 1999). Third, parents perceive barriers to the inclusion of children with disabilities or chronic illnesses as human made, rather than being inherent in the conditions themselves (Kliebenstein & Broome 2000). Fourth, both sets of parents have to navigate a sometimes complex service system, perhaps at times when their own resources are depleted by worries, extra costs and interrupted employment (Norris & Closs 1999). For both populations of students, parent-driven, collaborative relationships between their parents and teachers are essential to promote the students’ inclusion. These relationships will be based on the recognition that parents are knowledgeable about their children and are a source of valuable information about their needs (Norris & Closs 1999).

Additional resources Batshaw, M.L., Pellegrino, L. & Roizen N.J. (Eds.) (2007). Children with disabilities. (6th ed.) Sydney: Elsevier; Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Early childhood Allen K.E. & Cowdery, G.E. (2005). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education. (5th ed). Albany, NY: Delmar. Cook, R.E., Klein, M.D., Tessier, A. & Daley, S.E. (2004). Adapting early childhood curricula for children in inclusive settings. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Kranowitz, C.S. (1998). The out-of-sync child: Recognizing and coping with sensory integration dysfunction. New York: Perigee. Porter, L. (Ed.) (2002). Educating young children with additional needs. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Also published as Educating young children with special needs. London: Paul Chapman/Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


93

Sandall, S.R. & Schwartz, I.S. (2002). Building blocks for teaching preschoolers with special needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

School-aged populations Ashman, A. & Elkins, J. (Eds.) (2005). Educating children with diverse abilities. (2nd ed.) Sydney: Pearson Education. Foreman, P. (Ed.) (2005). Inclusion in action. Melbourne: Nelson Australia. Hallahan, D.P. & Kauffman, J.M. (2006). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education. (10th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S. & Schumm, J.S. (2007). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Westwood, P. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs: Strategies for the regular classroom. (4th ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer. Westwood, P.S. (2004). Learning and learning difficulties: A handbook for teachers. Melbourne: ACER Press.

Autism spectrum Cumine, V., Leach, J. & Stevenson, G. (1998). Asperger syndrome: A practical guide for teachers. London: David Fulton. Gillberg, C. (2002). A guide to Asperger syndrome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Collaboration with parents Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E.J. & Soodak, L.C. (2006). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

6

Collaborating with parents of gifted learners

Many influences on happiness and success are like love – it is possible to say how it feels and what happens because of it, but there is no sure recipe to apply to others. We do, however, have very clear information about what the gifted and talented need by way of support towards self-fulfillment – an education to suit their potential, opportunities to flourish, and people who believe in them. Freeman (2006, p. 400)

By definition, there are as many students who are gifted learners as there are with learning disabilities. By conservative definitions, each group constitutes the extreme 3–5 per cent of the population. Yet, five differences distinguish gifted from special education. First, although both aim to meet the additional needs of atypical learners, in special education students are provided with individualised programs when they need them, whereas in gifted education they often have to earn access to special provisions through exemplary behaviour (Borland 1989). Paradoxically, this behaviour may indicate that they are functioning adaptively within present arrangements and therefore do not need these to be adjusted. Instead, the students more likely to need a differentiated curriculum are those with disruptive behaviour or other signs of academic disengagement, frustration and boredom (Borland 1989). The second difference is that, whereas special education has a rich history of at least attempting family-allied or family-centred services, gifted education largely ignores and discounts parental input (Alsop 1997; Hertzog & Bennett 2004; Huff et al. 2005). In one study, even when parents had procured a psychological assessment, only one quarter of classroom teachers or principals responded positively to its diagnosis of giftedness (Alsop 1997). When parents report that their child is gifted, a common response from school personnel is, ‘There, there, dear. Everyone

94


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


95

thinks her child is gifted’. The same remark would never be offered if the parent had reported that her child had cerebral palsy. Third, despite ample evidence of the need for early intervention to offset educational disadvantage, provisions for gifted children are seldom available prior to the middle primary school years – if then (Gillman & Hansen 1987). A sensible reluctance to label young children as gifted translates into ignoring the fact that they learn more quickly than others and disregards their additional needs. Fourth, whereas parents of children with disabilities have been encouraged – if not pressured – to teach their children at home, when parents have responded to their gifted child’s advanced interests, they are accused of ‘pushing’ their child and trying to ‘hot-house’ him or her for their own aggrandisement. In fact, most parents attempt to respond to the skills and interests of the children themselves, encouraging them to develop their own special gifts and abilities, in contrast with pumping children full of information or hot-housing, which promotes adults’ ambitions (Smutny, Veenker & Veenker 1989). Fifth, while almost all teacher-training courses include some modules on disability, few include any on giftedness. This fails to prepare teachers to recognise and provide for gifted students. Given a resulting lack of awareness in schools about the indicators of gifted development, Box 6.1 lists these.

Box 6.1 Common indicators of giftedness Many children are gifted in a range of skill domains and, even within their area of talent, may manifest all the indicators listed here. Ultimately, given that the term ‘gifted’ signifies a significant advance compared with normal development, for children from the dominant culture, comparative or normed assessments will be needed if confirmation is required.

Cognitive (thinking) skills Children who are intellectually gifted display many of the following features: • early achievement of developmental milestones (at least one-third sooner) • quick learning • keen observation of the environment • active in eliciting stimulation from the environment • quick and accurate recall

➡


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

96


• • •

recall of skills and information introduced some time ago deeper knowledge than other children understanding of abstract concepts (e.g. death or time).

Academic giftedness Children who are both intellectually and academically gifted might: • read, write or use numbers in advanced ways • write words other than their own name prior to school entry • show advanced preferences for books and films (unless too sensitive to older themes).

Learning styles Many gifted children not only achieve more than average, they also approach tasks with a sophisticated style. Their application to tasks may decline in the face of fatigue, discouragement (immediate or long-term) or a lack of challenge. Nevertheless, when highly achieving, they display: • alertness • responsivity to novel stimuli • speed and efficiency of information processing • willingness to reflect when necessary in order to maintain accuracy • preference for challenge and complexity • openness to new ideas and experiences • motivation and curiosity in a search for understandings • wide-ranging interests • an intense focus on, or the ability to immerse themselves in, an area of interest, in order to achieve a depth of understanding • longer than usual concentration span on challenging topics of interest (but may ‘flit’ from one activity to another if activities are not challenging enough) • early use of metacognitive skills to manage their own thinking processes • internal locus of control • independence at challenging, non-routine tasks • willingness to take risks • perseverance in the face of obstacles • tolerance of ambiguity. Creative thinking style Children who are intellectually and creatively gifted might display the following learning styles, applying these across skill domains or in a single domain in which they excel:

➡


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM


• • • • •

•

97

imagination creative problem solving use of intuition (that is, allowing some of their thinking to occur at a preconscious level) fluency, which reflects an ability to employ a range or quantity of ideas flexibility, which refers both to the quality of ideas brought to bear on the problem and to skill at adapting their learning style to the task demands and goals being nonconforming and rejecting limits.

Auditory–sequential learning style Children who learn by listening and ordering ideas often: • learn sequentially: one idea at a time • are analytical – that is, able to break down problems into their parts • attend well to details • learn well from verbal instructions • are able to carry out instructions to do several things in succession • think logically • have good planning skills • are organised • are less impulsive than age peers • have a clear understanding of cause and effect • use rehearsal to remember • once in school, achieve reasonably consistent grades across all subject areas. Visual-spatial (or holistic) learning style Children who learn by forming visual images of concepts may be later than others to excel, but nevertheless: • learn concepts all at once • synthesise ideas – that is, put them together • see the big picture and, correspondingly, may miss details • learn intuitively • have what can only be termed ‘quirky’ organisational systems • learn instantly and so do not benefit from rehearsal or repetition • once in school, obtain uneven grades across subject areas.

Speech and language skills Intellectually gifted children with advanced verbal skills often show: • early comprehension of language

➡


15/1/08 11:47:39 AM

98


• • • • • •

advanced speech in terms of vocabulary, grammar and clear articulation use of metaphor and analogy ability to make up songs or stories spontaneously ability to modify language for less mature children use of language for a real exchange of ideas and information at an early age a sophisticated sense of humour.

Motor abilities Many intellectually gifted children have fine motor skills that lag behind their intellectual level, as seen in untidy handwriting, for example. On the other hand, those who are gifted in the motor domain can show a range of the following characteristics: • early motor development, particularly in skills that are under cognitive control, such as balance • ability to locate themselves within the environment • early awareness of left and right • facility at putting together new or difficult puzzles • ability to take apart and reassemble objects with unusual skill • ability to make interesting shapes or patterns with objects • advanced drawing or handwriting • high levels of physical energy.

Artistic expression Early signs of artistic talent include: • superior visual memory • engaging with an imaginary playmate in elaborate conversations and games • assigning elaborate characters to dolls or teddies • creating and performing in plays • enjoyment of drama, role playing • advanced skill at drawing, painting or other artistic modalities.

Musical skills Musical giftedness may be among the earliest to emerge – by one year of age – although very young children’s motor ability can block their musical performance. Musically gifted children: • are enthralled by musical sounds • have a deep appreciation and understanding of music (with or without musical performance) • are sensitive to musical structure – tonality, key, harmony and rhythm

➡


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


• •

99

appreciate the expressive properties of music – timbre, loudness, articulation and phrasing have a strong musical memory that permits them to recall music and play it back later either by singing or through an instrument.

Social skills Intellectually and verbally advanced children typically are also advanced in their social skills, showing some of the following characteristics: • highly developed empathy for others • less egocentricity: they can deduce the cause of others’ emotions • advanced play interests • early ability to play games with rules • early ability to form close friendships • seeking out older children or adults for companionship • withdrawing to solitary play if intellectual peers are not available • often being sought out by peers for their play ideas and sense of fairness • leadership skills • early development of moral reasoning and judgment • early interest in social issues involving injustices.

Emotional and behavioural characteristics Some intellectually gifted children are emotionally gifted as well. These children might display: • emotional sensitivity, intensity and responsiveness • for some, early spiritual awareness • early development of fears • early development of self-concept and awareness of being different • high self-esteem in their strong domains • perfectionism, in the sense of having high standards (self-referenced) • over-sensitivity to criticism • frustration, which can lead to emotional or behavioural outbursts • acceptance of responsibility usually given only to older children • nonconformity. Source: Porter (2005, pp. 8–12).

Sources of conflict between teachers and parents of gifted learners The responsibility that parents of gifted students feel to support their learning can, in extreme cases, put unnecessary strain on them to devote every waking hour to their children’s needs. This can lead to the syndrome


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

100


of ‘helicopter’ parents, who hover over their children’s every action, trying to ensure that their ‘potential’ is not wasted (Colangelo & Brower 1987; Fisher 1981; Hackney 1981). These parents can then impose this pressure on teachers, demanding that they perform some special magic to ensure that their children are learning constantly. This is a pressure that teachers cannot answer to anyone’s satisfaction. It is, however, only one reason for conflict between parents and teachers of gifted learners. Two others are teachers’ resistant attitudes to giftedness and disputes between teachers and parents over the identification of students as being gifted.

Teachers’ attitudes to giftedness Conflict between parents and teachers can arise when they do not agree on the necessity for gifted provisions (Moon 2003). Teachers may be resistant to providing for gifted students in schools because of a range of unconducive attitudes, the first of which is prejudice. Many researchers have found that teachers tend not to have positive views of gifted students or of educational provisions for them, with attitudes ranging from indifference to outright antagonism (Cramond & Martin 1987; Forster 2002; Lee 2000; McBride 1992; Sankar-DeLeeuw 2002; Sharma 2001). This is perhaps due to cultural anti-intellectualism, as found in the United States (Gallagher 1991), the United Kingdom (Eyre 1997), Australia (Bailey 1998; Wilson 1996) and New Zealand (Fraser 2004). In these countries, authorities are keen to allocate extra money for elite sports programs, for example, but are less willing to fund elite intellectual training (Gross 2004). This ‘cultural cringe’ is then sustained by a lack of teacher training in gifted education (Forster 2002) and, in the absence of provisions for gifted students, a lack of familiarity with these (Carrington & Bailey 2000). Some teachers are sceptical about the concepts of intelligence and standardised testing, believing that both are arbitrary and meaningless. However, while it is true that we created a definition of ‘high ability’, this does not mean that we invented high ability itself. Giftedness is a psychological reality in that there are individual differences in ability (Gallagher 1996; Pyryt 1996). Others believe that everyone is gifted at something. Gardner’s (1983) multiple ‘intelligences’ popularised the notion that everyone has a special talent (despite Gardner himself refuting this). However, this is arithmetically absurd: it is not possible for everyone to be ‘above average’ on any human capacity: height, driving skill or intellectual ability. While it is true that students do have individual strengths, these abilities seldom fall so far above the average that the students need special programming in those domains (Braggett 1992; Gagné 1997; Gross 2004; Runco 1997).


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


101

Moreover, some of Gardner’s domains (such as spiritual or naturalistic intelligence) are not even the core business of schools. Other educators accept the notion of giftedness, but claim that gifted learners are already advantaged and are able to progress academically without specific help. However, although it is true that they can learn more easily than most, they are still children and still need to be taught how to learn (Braggett 1994). They cannot excel without assistance (Webb, Meckstroth & Tolan 1991). A philosophical extension of this argument is that everyone should have equal opportunities and that, as gifted learners already have academic and often social advantages, they should not get any further help. However, true egalitarianism upholds that all children have an equal right to develop; this should not be confused with a right to equal development (Gross 2004; Stanley & Baines 2002). Although students have an equal right to access appropriate educational experiences, justice does not demand that these experiences be the same for all students (Benbow 1992; Strike 1988). Yet another argument is that, while gifted learners have needs, these have to take a lower priority compared with students who have disabilities. Therefore, the argument proceeds, we cannot devote resources to gifted provisions until the higher-priority needs of students with disabilities have been fully resourced. In favour of gifted education is a national resources rationale, which upholds that society should invest in gifted education because talented children will grow up to become our political and business leaders. This is nonsense: there is no evidence that our political or financial leaders come from the ranks of the gifted. Moreover, like the pressure to realise children’s ‘potential’, in focusing on how gifted learners will ‘turn out’ as adults, this rationale ignores that they have needs now and have a right to have these met, regardless of how they ultimately function in adulthood. This, then, is the same perspective as the one adopted in special education: it treasures children for being themselves, rather than for what they can do now or might do in the future (Corrigan 1994). This rationale for gifted education is that gifted learners have as much right to have their needs met as other students – but are no more deserving than anyone else (Peterson 1993). Thus, advocacy for gifted education becomes advocacy for individualised education for all students, not for better treatment for the gifted. When gifted students are provided for on the basis of need – that is, are offered a modified curriculum because their present program is not meeting their requirements – this is not elitism or favouritism: it is what schools are supposed to do for students with atypical needs (Borland 1989).


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

102


Disputed identification A second source of conflict between parents and teachers of gifted learners is dispute over identification of them as gifted. Parents have detailed knowledge of their child’s milestones, motivation and personality, which allows them to be skilled reporters of his or her abilities. As a result, various studies have found that parents identify their children’s giftedness with an accuracy rate of between 61 per cent (Louis & Lewis 1992) and 76 per cent (Ciha et al. 1974; Jacobs 1971). Generally, when parents inaccurately describe their child as gifted, the children are typically advanced, although not quite within the gifted range. But, in a study by Silverman and colleagues (1986), all the children who were nominated by their parents but who did not score as such on an IQ test had histories of recurrent early ear infections, which contributed to lowered verbal scores and thus could classify the children as gifted–learning disabled. In that case, the parents’ nominations were taken to be 100 per cent accurate. Contrary to the myth that parents’ impressions of their children’s skills are exaggerated, it is more usual for them to underestimate their children’s abilities (Chitwood 1986), especially when well educated themselves (Roedell, Jackson & Robinson 1980). Those with inflated concepts of giftedness as prodigious performance tend to recognise their child’s advancement but understate its extent (Smutny, Walker & Meckstroth 1997). In comparison, early studies indicated that teachers were generally poor at recognising giftedness, especially in children from minority cultural groups (Hadaway & Marek-Schroer 1992). Accuracy rates of between 4.4 and 48 per cent have been reported (Ciha et al. 1974; Gear 1976), with early childhood teachers accurately identifying fewer than 10 per cent of gifted children (Jacobs 1971). A more recent study found an improved rate of 57 per cent (Hodge & Kemp 2006). In that study, teachers most readily recognised students who were verbally gifted and early readers. Teachers’ lack of training in gifted education and stereotypical views that all gifted children are academically productive contribute to their lower effectiveness in identifying gifted learners. Sometimes, a discrepancy between a teacher’s assessment and the parents’ is not due to error by one or the other but to the differing behaviours that children display in each setting. •

•

Some gifted children disguise their giftedness from their teachers, perhaps to be tactful or to avoid the spotlight. The result is that, while they display their talents at home, their teachers do not see their advanced performances at school (Hodge 2004). The activities on offer at school are age-appropriate and therefore do not allow gifted children to display their advanced skills.


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


•

•

•

•

• •

103

The children’s average fine motor skills impede their ability or motivation to produce sophisticated products in writing or drawings. The mechanical aspects of putting ideas on paper can discourage or impede the flow of creative expression. Observing average performances on these tasks, teachers may incorrectly conclude that the children’s thinking or creative skills are average also. Students may be creatively or emotionally gifted, which parents might observe but these skills may not emerge on IQ tests or in school performances, and therefore can be overlooked at school. Students can be intellectually but not academically gifted. Some intellectually gifted learners manipulate information in sophisticated ways but are not especially advanced in the core academic subjects of reading, writing and mathematics. Students may be visually or spatially gifted (see Box 6.1). This can have a range of effects: they may be less motivated to apply themselves to nonvisual tasks; they can get lost in the visual scenes that they generate in their minds and therefore do not pay close attention to verbal instruction; or they can resist sequential tasks or rote rehearsal on the grounds that they have already mastered the information holistically. Students can possess both gifted thinking capacities and learning disabilities, with parents more likely to notice the former and teachers the latter. Students may come from minority cultures and manifest their talents in domains that are less recognisable to teachers from the dominant culture.

Box 6.2 Manifestations of giftedness in students from minority cultures Although intelligent thinking processes are the same across cultures, the content to which they are applied can differ (Sternberg 2007), with giftedness in minority cultures manifesting as: • communication skills that are rich in imagery (making allowances for any lack of proficiency in English if it is not the students’ first language) • ability in visual or performing arts • social skills such as responsiveness to the feelings of others or skilfulness in group activities, including leadership or facilitation of others’ achievements • emotional expressiveness. Sources: Bevan-Brown 1999, 2004; Fernández et al. 1998; Frasier 1993; Gibson 1998; Shaklee 1993; Shaklee & Viechnicki 1995; Torrance 1998.


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

104


These examples tell us that both the parents’ judgements and an IQ score diagnosing giftedness can be accurate, while at the same time the child does not perform at advanced levels at school. In other words, despite their contradictory assessments, both the parents and teachers are accurate in their impressions of the children’s abilities. It is just that each has an incomplete picture.

Provisions sought by parents of gifted learners The commonalities between parents of students with disabilities and gifts are many. First, both want a developmentally appropriate education for their children. Despite the myths, most parents seek a balanced education for their gifted child: they do not wish to promote intellectual skills alone (Creel & Karnes 1988). Second, both sets of parents want their children to fit in socially at school. For gifted students, this will require an approximate match between their abilities and interests and those of their classmates, which means that some will have to be placed among older peers. Third, both sets of parents feel a responsibility to nurture their children’s abilities and, to that end, recognise the need to advocate for their children in schools. Fourth, both are confused and apprehensive about how their child’s future will unfold in the absence of appropriate provisions. Finally, both sets of parents can be isolated and therefore require support within the school community.

Curricular adjustments Many schools adopt the slogan that they strive for excellence. However, given that no school proclaims to strive for mediocrity, this statement is meaningless unless supported by specific programs that cater for gifted and other atypical learners. In the absence of challenge, gifted learners will be bored, which manifests in their being inattentive but still offering accurate answers to teachers’ questions, asking abstract questions to raise the level of the discussion, disrupting the class with humour, or reading or sleeping during class (Kanevsky & Keighley 2003). In the long term, these students’ moral indignation at being neglected can cause them to withdraw from learning altogether and become increasingly unproductive. Curricular adjustments must be systematically structured to match students’ learning needs, allowing for differences in both the pace (quantity) and depth (quality) of their learning (Borland 1989; Piirto 1999). These adjustments span relevant modifications to the learning environment, teaching and learning processes, curricular content and the products whereby students demonstrate their mastery. Environmental adjustments include allowing students prolonged periods to be absorbed


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


105

and to complete projects about which they are passionate or, at other times, moving quickly through material that they can master rapidly. It entails placement and grouping decisions – placing gifted learners with others of similar ability for at least some of their day, and subsequently making instruction more complex. Homogeneous grouping improves students’ achievement, attitude to learning, social skills and self-esteem (Allan 1991; Gamoran 1992; Hallinan 1990; Kolloff & Moore 1989; Kulik & Kulik 1982, 1992; Lando & Schneider 1997; Rogers 2001; Rogers & Span 1993; Rist 1970; Shore & Delcourt 1996; Slavin 1987, 1990; Van Tassel-Baska 1992). Adjustments to teaching and learning processes include generating opportunities for gifted learners to engage in sophisticated thinking. As is true for all learners, five qualities of teaching are vital for motivation: control (self-determination), choice (opportunities to act on preferences), challenge, complexity and a caring teacher (Kanevsky & Keighley 2003). Although ‘process’ is conceptually different from ‘content’, in practice we cannot teach students how to learn without teaching content that is worth learning. Therefore, curricular content also needs some modification. Some students can gain access most readily to advanced curricular content by early entry to school or grade skipping, although even then further adjustments within classes are likely to be necessary. This is usually referred to as ‘acceleration’, although in reality it is merely an attempt at a developmentally appropriate placement (Feldhusen 1989; Feldhusen, Van Winkle & Ehle 1996; Rogers & Kimpston 1992; Southern, Jones & Stanley 1993). The academic aims of acceleration are to avoid boredom, along with any resultant behavioural and motivational difficulties; to promote students’ development of study skills; to honour their enthusiasm for learning; and to meet their needs for social inclusion. Research consistently reports that acceleration meets all of these aims (Benbow 1991; Eales & de Paoli 1991; Heinbokel 1997; Janos 1987; Kulik & Kulik 1984; Paulus 1984; Proctor, Black & Feldhusen 1986; Proctor, Feldhusen & Black 1988; Rimm & Lovance 1992a, 1992b; Robinson & Robinson 1992; Rogers & Kimpston 1992; Sayler & Brookshire 1993; Schiever & Maker 1997; Shore & Delcourt 1996; Southern & Jones 1992; Southern, Jones & Fiscus 1989; Southern et al. 1993; Swiatek & Benbow 1991; Townsend 2004; Vialle et al. 2001). One study found that, compared with their classmates, early entrants’ relative academic standing increased as they progressed through school (Proctor et al. 1986). It appears that students’ early exit from school that results from early entry or grade skipping is not a problem for them: they continue to do well into the university years and beyond, particularly with early


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

106


career counselling (Olszewski-Kubilius 2002; Swiatek & Benbow 1991). Grade skipping (sometimes by three or more years) can be particularly necessary and beneficial for extremely gifted students with IQs above 160 (Gross 2006). Nevertheless, educators are right to be cautious about early school entry for individual students with moderate giftedness (IQs of 130–145). While the majority of these students may benefit from the experience, perhaps as many as 15–20 per cent of early entrants experience some adjustment difficulties (Gagné & Gagnier 2004; McCluskey, Baker & Massey 1996). However, it is uncertain whether these difficulties are due to acceleration as such, or to negative attitudes by teachers that result in accelerated students receiving little support in their new placements (Heinbokel 1997; Southern & Jones 1992), or to the fact that acceleration is used so rarely that accelerants feel abnormal (Southern et al. 1993). The final aspect of curriculum differentiation for gifted students is the medium in which they will express their learning. Gifted learners may need some latitude to take their product beyond the level normally achievable by their age peers or, for those with accompanying learning disabilities, to express their learning in other than written form. Aside from the obvious benefits for gifted students’ learning, appropriate curricular adjustments improve their social and emotional wellbeing. Being recognised as gifted enhances their self-esteem, as it confirms what they already know about themselves (Bain & Bell 2004; Manaster et al. 1994). When this recognition is followed by access to gifted provisions, students’ academic self-esteem may decline to more realistic but still positive levels, while their social and physical self-appraisals can improve (Chan 1988; Coleman & Fults 1982; Craven & Marsh 1997; Hershey & Oliver 1988; Hoge & Renzulli 1993; Marsh & Craven 1998; Marsh et al. 1995; Moon, Swift & Shallenberger 2002; Olszewski, Kulieke & Willis 1987; Ring & Shaughnessy 1993; Schneider et al. 1989; Wright & Leroux 1997). Healthy levels of academic self-esteem are particularly likely when students compare their performances with their own past achievements, rather than judging themselves in comparison with others (Craven & Marsh 1997; Gross 1997).

Self-referenced perfectionism Gifted learners are often accused of being perfectionists, although that is not necessarily a liability. With respect to self-expectations (as opposed to expectations of others), perfectionism comes in two forms. The first is a healthy form of self-referenced perfectionism, whereby individuals strive for excellence because they know that they are capable of achieving it (LoCicero & Ashby 2000; Parker 1996; Parker & Adkins 1995; Siegle


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


107

& Schuler 2000; Wood & Care 2002). These students are intrinsically motivated and therefore generally have a strong work ethic and are organised and thorough in their study habits (Neumeister 2004a). They develop this personal style by copying their parents’ industrious work habits and having an early history of success, the pattern of which they are then motivated to sustain (Neumeister 2004b). In contrast are those whose attempts to excel are an effort to prove their self-worth. These socially prescribed perfectionists fear failure and, consequently, avoid challenge if failure is a possibility, are highly anxious, depressive, have low self-esteem, and treat themselves harshly when they perceive that they have performed below expectations (Feldhusen, Dai & Clinkenbeard 2000; Neumeister 2004a, 2004b; Neumeister & Finch 2006). Their extrinsic motivation causes them to procrastinate so that if they do less well than expected, they can blame a lack of time or effort, rather than any lack of ability. This pattern arises from authoritarian parents who demand rather than encourage high standards (Rice, Ashby & Preusser 1996), and who induce guilt in their children or withdraw love when they perform below expectations; it also comes from competing for school awards (Neumeister 2004b). These messages encourage extrinsic motivation and imply to students that their self-worth is contingent on being perfect. Therefore, schools need to avoid delivering external rewards such as praise, merit certificates and high-achiever awards that foster comparisons with others, and, instead, should give students informative feedback that helps them to recognise their own achievements and progress. (See Porter 2007a, 2007b, 2008.)

Provisions for gifted–disabled learners It is thought that around 5–10 per cent of gifted students – that is, somewhere between one in 200 and one in 400 children – could also have a learning disability (Dix & Schafer 1996). The reverse statistic is that approximately 2–5 per cent of children with disabilities may also be gifted (Johnson, Karnes & Carr 1997; Whitmore 1981; Yewchuk & Lupart 2000). These children’s giftedness is often obscured by their disability and therefore is seldom identified (Karnes 1979). The manifestations of combined learning disabilities and giftedness are listed in Box 6.3 (page 108). Dyslexia is the most commonly studied learning disability to co-occur with giftedness. In many cases, students’ learning difficulties are subtle, and manifest as disorganised work habits that cause adults to regard them as unmotivated or lazy. A second group of students with dual exceptionalities are recognised as having learning difficulties, but these mask their gifts and therefore their high abilities are overlooked. A third group are those whose gifts and learning difficulties both go unnoticed.


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

108


Their wide spread of abilities can leave these students frustrated and confused, their parents exasperated and their teachers feeling helpless (Fall & Nolan 1993). This often worsens as they grow older; as the discrepancy widens between their expected and actual academic performances (Weinfeld et al. 2002). Their self-esteem is vulnerable because they are aware that they do not understand, but do not know why they find some tasks impenetrable when others come easily to them.

Box 6.3 Characteristics of gifted students with specific learning disabilities Gifted–learning disabled children have some intellectual skills within the gifted range but also some academic skills below age level.

Academic performance • • • •

strengths or expertise in at least one specific academic subject very able at mathematics, but poor in language/arts, or vice versa difficulties with spelling or handwriting speaking vocabulary exceeds written expression

Intellectual style • • • • • • • •

understand and discover patterns and connections between concepts unusual and active imagination highly creative excel at tasks requiring abstract thinking, analysis and problem solving deep commitment to, and highly productive in, activities outside of school wide range of interests difficulty with simple tasks, but competent at more sophisticated activities sophisticated sense of humour

Intellectual skills: auditory–sequential giftedness • exceptional comprehension • superior memory and general knowledge • extensive vocabulary • good communication skills • grasps metaphors, satire and analogies

➡


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


109

Intellectual skills: visual–spatial giftedness • keen visual memory • capable of solving puzzles and mazes • exceptional ability in geometry and science • difficulty with computation but capable of higher-level mathematical reasoning • can articulate the goal of tasks but cannot complete the sequence of steps needed for completion • ability to grasp broad concepts at once, rather than ‘step by step’ • inattentive to verbal instruction • poor spelling • difficulty with phonics • difficulty with rote memorisation

Emotional signs • • • • • • • • • • •

fragile self-esteem feel academically inept generalise minor academic failures to feelings of overall inadequacy unrealistically high or low self-expectations confused about their abilities report feeling different from others strong anxiety or fear of failure in academic tasks do not achieve well under pressure – e.g. on timed tasks sensitive to criticism of their work, even constructive criticism experience intense frustration poor social skills with children and adults

Behaviours • • • • • • •

disruptive in class often off-task disorganised, especially when unmotivated impulsive and act out without thinking about the consequences offer creative excuses to avoid difficult tasks often aggressive may be withdrawn Source: Porter (2005, pp. 183–84).

Emotional support for gifted students The notion of the ‘mad genius’ still permeates community understanding of giftedness, despite evidence that ongoing mental illness and gifted


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

110


productivity are incompatible (Yewchuk 1995a, 1995b). There simply is not ‘a fine line between insanity and genius’, as the myth claims. Instead, the weight of research evidence indicates that giftedness does not cause emotional maladjustment (Clark 2002; Dwairy 2004; Feldhusen & Nimlos-Hippen 1992; Freeman 1991; Gallucci 1988; Gallucci, Middleton & Kline 1999a, 1999b; Garland & Zigler 1999; Grossberg & Cornell 1988; Gust 1997; Gust-Brey & Cross 1999; Janos & Robinson 1985; Kunkel et al. 1995; Lehman & Erdwins 1981; Moon, Kelly & Feldhusen 1997; Nail & Evans 1997; Neihart 1999, 2002; Olszewski-Kubilius, Kulieke & Krasny 1988; Parker 1996; Robinson & Noble 1991; Rost & Czeschlik 1994). In general, gifted children and adults are better adjusted than the average, because they usually have the support of well-resourced parents who themselves are high achievers (Stedtnitz 1995). As well as these external resources, they also have the internal thinking skills to solve any problems they face (Freeman 1997; Preuss & Dubow 2004; Webb 1993; Whitmore 1980). Thus, in the words of Clark (2002, p. 175), ‘the very ability that creates the problem can supply the solution’. Nevertheless, like other young people, gifted students are not insulated from adverse life events such as the death of a relative, or parental divorce. Similarly, they can become less well adjusted when enduring unsuitable educational provisions. Their emotional state can cause parents to have them assessed and, when giftedness is found, the myth connecting giftedness to maladjustment is invoked to blame that for their emotional difficulties (Freeman 2006). The problem with making this assumption is that the real cause of these young people’s difficulties is never recognised, with the result that they do not receive the educational provisions or emotional support they require.

Social inclusion Socially, many gifted learners are aware that, although they themselves value their special skills, many others – including their parents, teachers and peers – do not (Colangelo 2003; Coleman & Cross 1988; Cross, Coleman & Terhaar-Yonkers 1991; Cross, Coleman & Stewart 1992; Kerr, Colangelo & Gaeth 1988; Swiatek 1995; Tidwell 1980; van Boxtel & Mönks 1992). Nevertheless, even less popular gifted students have higher self-esteem than those with average abilities (Norman et al. 2000). Gifted students cannot help but notice that they are ‘out of step’ with age peers, in which case it is crucial that the important adults in their lives validate this perception. Conforming and being ‘normal’ – that is, the same as everyone else – is not an option for them. Parents might be tempted to protect them from this reality by rationalising that they are different from others ‘in a better way’, but this will not help them to build bridges with their peers (Hackney 1981; Roeper 1995). Instead, you can


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


111

help them to understand that no one has more than one or two friends at a time, and that their selectivity with friendships and ability to be selfsufficient can be assets. Verbally bright, emotionally aware, mature adolescents can find that they are a magnet for unsolicited romantic advances. Being popular with potential sexual partners might seem to be the type of problem that every adolescent wants to have, but unwanted attention can be embarrassing, in which case young people in this position will need some guidance about how tactfully to decline unwelcome advances.

Cultural inclusion Students from minority cultures are under-identified as being gifted (Borland & Wright 2000; Braggett 1998; Butler-Por 1993; Davis & Rimm 2004; Ford et al. 2000; Frasier 1989, 1997; Gallagher & Gallagher 1994; Maker 1996; Milner & Ford 2007; Renzulli 1973; Richert 1987, 1997; Scott et al. 1996; Tannenbaum 1983). This is clearly inequitable, as giftedness occurs at equal rates in all cultures (Borland & Wright 1994, 2000; Casey & Quisenberry 1976). The reduced recognition of students from minority backgrounds comes about in part because of the social disadvantage many of them experience and because the dominant culture’s definition of giftedness overlooks its manifestations in different cultures (Neumeister et al. 2007) – see Box 6.2. This, plus the presumption that disadvantaged students from minority cultures cannot excel, generates neglect of their needs (Huff et al. 2005). Gifted students from minority cultures are likely to be sensitised to the injustices they experience and to perceive a conflict between their racial identity and high achievement in the dominant culture’s terms (Ford 2002; Neihart 2005; Worrell 2007). Their motivation to excel, and therefore their productivity at school, can be reduced by their need to be loyal to their culture.

Behavioural guidance Children who achieve at high levels are typically curious, with a hunger to learn and a strong need to control (Freeman 2000). Although these traits foster high achievement, they can simultaneously create conflict with authoritarian disciplinarians at home or school. Combined with advanced verbal skills, many gifted young people can negotiate tirelessly, to the intense frustration of any adult who is trying to ensure compliance. Authoritarian discipline is detrimental to all young people across the ability range (for reviews see Porter 2007a, 2007b, 2008) but, with their processing capacities, gifted individuals are particularly insulted at attempts to make them think and do as others tell them.


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

112


Because their cognitive skills allow them to anticipate outcomes, gifted learners tend to be more careful and less impulsive than other children (Roeper 1995). Nevertheless, a proportion do show some behavioural difficulties at school: • • • • •

as a way of coping with boredom (Freeman 1995; Plucker & McIntire 1996) to prove to peers that they are not so smart after all (Clark 2002) because of heightened activity levels (Shaywitz et al. 2001) as part of an under-achievement syndrome (Clark 2002; Delisle 1992; Freeman 1995) when their emotional development has not caught up with their intellectual precocity.

Their uneven development across skill domains can make it difficult for adults to know what to expect of gifted learners. The children can reason and perform at advanced levels one minute, then revert to age level the next. Their mature behaviour can cause adults to expect too much of them and then to become frustrated at age-appropriate behaviour in the mistaken belief that the children ‘should know better’ (Colangelo 2003; Colangelo & Assouline 2000). By the end of primary school, some gifted learners can reason at levels in advance of most adults and will notice when they are brighter than their teachers. This will develop into disrespect, however, only if you take it as an affront, rather than feeling invigorated by the intellectual stimulation that these students can offer.

Career guidance Gifted students may begin to consider their career options earlier than others – often during their late primary school years. Because of their high accomplishments, they often set themselves career goals that require detailed planning and lengthy academic preparation (Moon et al. 1997). Rather than abiding by the maxim that ‘You are what you do’, these students have the luxury of abilities that enable them, when they are willing to rise to the challenge, to ‘Do what you are’. To achieve this, they will need guidance to select careers that reflect their abilities, interests and values, rather than status or salary.

Support for parents Although there is a common misconception that all parents want their child to be gifted, it is indeed a mixed blessing, one which raises in parents many uncertainties about how best to respond to their children’s particular needs and about whether they personally are equipped to do so


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


113

(Colangelo & Dettman 1983). Their responses to their child’s giftedness will depend, in part, on their values and understandings about giftedness, their experiences of how giftedness was handled in their family of origin, what they have believed about their own abilities throughout their life, and their own schooling history (Solow 2001). Given that giftedness is largely genetic (Gottfredson 2003; Patrick 2000; Plomin & Price 2003; Segal 2000; Thompson & Plomin 2000), the identification of their children’s talents can confront parents with their own giftedness and generate sadness for the child they once were whose needs were not recognised or met. Especially when parents have had a traumatic passage through school, they can be determined to protect their son or daughter from the same unsatisfactory experience. This is understandable, but can come across to teachers as excessive concern or being ‘pushy’. Although most parents recognise the need to advocate for their gifted child, they find it difficult to cope with the perception that they are unreasonably demanding (Silverman 1997). Yet, they know equally that they will achieve special educational provisions only when they instigate these, and realise that they will have to spend a great deal of energy just trying to make sure that their children are actually learning something at school (Fraser 2004). In the face of their disillusionment at a lack of accommodation for their child’s additional needs, parents might react by continually pressuring teachers, by over-scheduling their child with enriching extracurricular activities, or withdrawing from contact with their child’s teachers and complaining instead (Colangelo 2003; Colangelo & Assouline 2000). None of these reactions is ideal. Parents of gifted children from minority cultures report experiencing both interpersonal and institutional racism when advocating for their children in schools (Huff et al. 2005). Those with high levels of education themselves can feel confident about advocating for their children, while those with less education or reduced English proficiency may withdraw. Given that the most important condition for high achievement is the support the children receive, and that their families are the most valuable source of this support, you will need to recruit the support of parents from minority cultures by ensuring that your gifted provisions are culturally inclusive, non-elitist and non-threatening (Davis & Rimm 2004). At the same time as having to advocate for their children, parents of gifted students can be socially isolated. Whereas family, friends and professionals understand the fears of parents whose child has a disability, few appreciate the concerns of parents of gifted learners (Alsop 1997; McBride 1992). The largely unreliable and often unhelpful advice they receive leaves this group of parents particularly isolated (Alsop 1997).


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM

114


For this reason, it can be useful to recommend that they contact their local Gifted and Talented Children’s Association so that they can meet with other parents of gifted children. This can normalise what they are experiencing, provide information about solutions to common issues, reduce their isolation and give them some emotional support (Moon et al. 1997; Webb 1993).

Conclusion Parents and teachers of gifted students have much in common. Both want the children to be contented in school and to feel positively about learning and about themselves as learners. Both can be uncertain about how best to provide for gifted students. Both feel alone in their efforts, with teachers in particular hampered by a lack of training in gifted education and by bureaucratic constraints on best practice (Chyriwsky & Kennard 1997; Hall 1994). As with special education, there is no recipe for gifted education and, in the absence of training in giftedness, teachers cannot be expected to enact what they do not know. On the other hand, professionalism does not demand that they know everything, just that they be willing to find out. Parents can be an invaluable resource as a first step to discovering about giftedness and its various manifestations in individual students.

Additional resources Baum, S., Owen, S.V. & Dixon, J. (2002). To be gifted and learning disabled: From identification to practical intervention strategies. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education. Colangelo, N. & Davis, G.A. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Freeman, J. (1996). Highly able girls and boys. London: Department for Education and Employment. Kerr, B.A. & Cohn, S.J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. (2nd ed.) Sydney: Allen and Unwin/Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. Silverman, L.K. (Ed.) (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.


15/1/08 11:47:40 AM


115

Silverman, L.K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon. Smutny, J.F. (1998). Gifted girls. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Smutny, J.F. (2001). Stand up for your gifted child: How to make the most of kids’ strengths at school and at home. Minneapolis, MN Free Spirit.

Websites Gifted Development Center: http://gifteddevelopment.com


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

7

Collaborating with parents to solve disruptive behaviour

Often, anger, irritation, and frustration seem to motivate externalizing behaviors (e.g. reactive aggression); [while] other people’s negative responses to [these] behaviors… may also elicit frustration and anger from the child. Eisenberg et al. (2005, p. 193)

According to an extensive survey in the United States, teachers reported that only half of school entrants were able to navigate a successful entry to school, with over 30 per cent experiencing some problems and 16 per cent having serious difficulties making the transition (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2000). With so many students failing at such a tender age, this raises the question of whether our expectations of children in schools are appropriate. Many junior-primary teachers report that the system requires of young children skills that are unattainable at that age (Wesley & Buysse 2003). This not only causes stress for students but also their teachers, while the children’s early lack of success at school begins a trajectory of academic failure that is difficult to reverse in subsequent years (VotrubaDrzal 2006). School readiness is not just an attribute required of children but also comprises the familial, educational and social resources that support their success at school (Piotrkowski, Botsko & Matthews 2000). In terms of children’s qualities, they need two core sets of skills. First, their intellectual maturity, in general, and metacognitive skills (including self-regulated attention) account for 25 per cent of their adjustment and success in the early years of school (La Paro & Pianta 2000; McWayne, Fantuzzo & McDermott 2004a; Piotrkowski et al. 2000). Second, accounting for around 10 per cent of their success at making the transition to school, is children’s ability to regulate their own emotions and social behaviour (Downer & Pianta 2006; Fantuzzo et al. 2007; Graziano et al. 2007; La Paro & Pianta 2000; McClelland & Morrison 2003; McClelland, Morrison & Holmes 2000; Miles & Stipek 2006; NICHD Early Child Care Research 116


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


117

Network 2003a). Emotional self-control may be particularly crucial for navigating school entry, because the new learning environment and challenging academic tasks can arouse anxiety and frustration. Children who have acquired self-regulation are successful academically and socially when they first enter school, as a result of which they develop an image of themselves as competent (Luster, Lekskul & Oh 2004). Meanwhile, their teachers view them more positively, which contributes to an improved teacher–child relationship that, in turn, supports children’s subsequent educational engagement and success (Graziano et al. 2007; Ladd, Birch & Buhs 1999). Nevertheless, even when individual students seem not to be developmentally ready for school, their skilfulness improves in response to high-quality instruction and social support from their teachers (Downer & Pianta 2006; Hamre & Pianta 2005).

Attention deficits In a survey of teachers in 21 countries, spanning 30,000 students, the most common student behavioural problems reported were inattentiveness and aggression, with emotional difficulties also frequent concerns for both teachers and parents (Rescorla et al. 2007). Although aggression seems the most serious of these problems, inattentiveness and hyperactivity have a greater influence on whether students will complete high school (Vitaro et al. 2005). Two forms of inattentiveness generate problems for teachers: students who are disruptive but still achieve well, and students with attention difficulties and low overall ability that lead to both behavioural disruptiveness and low academic achievement (Johnson, McGue & Iacono 2005). The first group of students has been labelled as ‘bright but bored’, tends to be more able than their peers and uses disruption as entertainment. The second group may or may not qualify for a formal diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder (ADD) or attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity (ADHD), but these students’ risk for school failure requires primarily a proactive educational intervention, supplemented by behavioural responses. Children’s attention difficulties can be identified from as early as their first weeks of life (Auerbach et al. 2005) and are apparent in their earliest years of schooling. Thereafter, they may remain relatively stable into adolescence, with three out of four students still displaying continuing problems in high school (Hart et al. 1995; McGee et al. 1991). Those with ADD display academic (particularly literacy) difficulties, while those with ADHD continue to experience both academic and behavioural problems (Fischer et al. 1990; McGee et al. 1991, 2002; Spira & Fischel 2005). Inattentiveness typically does improve during the first year or two of school, after which it remains stable, while hyperactivity and impulsive behaviours continue a slow decline (Hart et al. 1995). Even


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

118


with improving attention skills, however, a small subgroup of children with early attention difficulties display escalating disruptive behaviour (Zhou et al. 2007), perhaps in frustration at their inability to keep pace with their peers and with teacher expectations. Notwithstanding the complexities of making accurate diagnoses in individual cases, extensive research is concluding that in true cases of ADD, the cause appears to be impairment in the brain’s executive functions (Glanzman & Blum 2007). These processes control or regulate our thinking and problem solving. Deficits in these areas produce inattention, lack of self-awareness, and poor planning, judgement, organisational skills, reflection and coordination abilities. Individuals with the conditions are less able to divide their attention between aspects of the task (Karatekin 2004) and take less time to plan ahead before initiating a response (Papadopoulos et al. 2005). This may be because they cannot retain a long sequence of steps in their working memory and thus have to get started prematurely. Students with ADD and ADHD know what to do, but cannot do what they know – that is, they do not lack knowledge, but have difficulties performing or enacting what they know (Purvis & Tannock 1997). Their resulting inability to sustain a planned approach to tasks is manifested in impulsive behaviour. These deficits in executive function lead to academic problems across many domains. The first is in verbal skills (Clark, Prior & Kinsella 2002). In expression, children with ADD and ADHD have problems organising and monitoring their conversation, making it difficult for listeners to follow their train of thought. In comprehension, they have problems organising a sequence of ideas and checking their information recall (Purvis & Tannock 1997). In short, they are misunderstood by listeners and misunderstand speakers (Clark et al. 2002). In order to overcome the disorganisation of their thinking, these children talk aloud to themselves more than usual (Berk & Landau 1993; Berk & Potts 1991; Diaz & Berk 1995; Kopecky et al. 2005). They may be constantly reminded to be quiet. When their hyperactivity is in verbal rather than in motor skills, the children are insatiable: once they get an idea in their mind, they talk about it incessantly (Green & Chee 2001). Attention difficulties (but not hyperactivity) also lead to reading impairments because the children miss out on early instruction (Clark et al. 2002; Glanzman & Blum 2007; Lonigan et al. 1999; McGee et al. 2002; Rabiner, Coie & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2000; Spira & Fischel 2005). Subsequently, their reading failure leads to progressive declines in attention skills and academic achievement (McGee et al. 2002; Spira & Fischel 2005). Socially, children with the attention deficits have difficulty regulating their emotions and actions (Clark et al. 2002). They also lack


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


119

self-awareness, having inflated evaluations of their social performance, and therefore do not moderate their actions in response to others’ negative feedback (Hoza et al. 2000). These social problems exceed those of children with behavioural difficulties alone (Clark et al. 2002), and produce socially intrusive and disruptive behaviours that generate significant social problems for them (Hoza et al. 2000). Their inappropriate social behaviour leads to acrimony at home, difficulties in establishing friendships at school and, even more importantly, in sustaining friendships – except perhaps with peers who are experiencing similar difficulties (Barkley 1988). This has an emotional cost. Students whose attention deficits give rise to social difficulties suffer associated emotional problems, including low self-efficacy, depression and anxiety (Hinshaw 2006; Hoza et al. 2000; Shelton et al. 1998; Young et al. 2005). While these emotional difficulties may be caused by children’s problems with emotional self-regulation (Lengua 2003), emotional maladjustment is almost certainly also a result of their social difficulties. In terms of motor activity, unlike normally boisterous activity, ADHD activity levels are excessive, task irrelevant, developmentally inappropriate and pervasive across settings (Anastopoulos & Barkley 1992). In short, children with ADHD fail to regulate their motor activity to suit the context. Their impulsive behaviours disrupt their own learning and that of classmates, and also result in a high rate of accidental injuries. For unknown reasons, these children experience a higher than usual rate of health problems such as incoordination, sleep disturbances, middle ear and upper respiratory infections, asthma and allergies (Anastopoulos & Barkley 1992), any or all of which can affect their school attendance. Finally, ADHD, in particular, often occurs in association with aggression and oppositional behaviour (Glanzman & Blum 2007). These behavioural problems tend to increase over the early school years (Snyder et al. 2004) but, nevertheless, are considered a byproduct rather than a defining feature of the attention deficits. Children with attention difficulties but without hyperactivity tend not to develop aggression (Loeber & Hay 1997).

Educational assessment Given that ADD and ADHD are intellectual impairments, students’ attention, intellectual and language skills must be assessed. The results they obtain on formal testing should be compared to observations by the practitioner (e.g. psychologist or speech pathologist), teachers and parents in order to determine whether there is a significant discrepancy between their measured intellectual abilities and their ability to apply their intelligence in their daily lives (Shelton et al. 1998). Other


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

120


potential developmental problems must also be excluded, for which a medical assessment can be necessary as well (American Psychiatric Association 1994).

Educational interventions Surprisingly little research has been conducted on how best to remediate the constellation of learning difficulties experienced in association with attention deficits (Raggi & Chronis 2006). Compared with all other interventions, stimulants still appear to produce greater improvements in attention skills for children aged over five years and those with moderate to severe difficulties. However, medication achieves no permanent academic, social or emotional improvements, has lesser effects on the hyperactive-impulsive and aggressive elements of the conditions and can produce unpleasant sideeffects (Anastopoulos & Barkley 1992; Barkley 1988; Fox & Rieder 1993; Glanzman & Blum 2007; Goldstein 1995; Hinshaw 2006; Kopecky et al. 2005; Levy 1993; Moline & Frankenberger 2001; Purdie, Hattie & Carroll 2002; Whalen et al. 2006). It is clear that medication is over-prescribed, but it has also been found that only 12 per cent of accurately diagnosed students were prescribed medication and consequently many received no relief from their problems (Glanzman & Blum 2007). Parents and teachers become more positive when the children’s behaviours improve, perhaps in response to medication (Whalen, Henker & Dotemoto 1981; Wodrich 1994). This suggests that, in severe cases, drug treatment should be considered, primarily to give the students themselves relief from their social difficulties, including loneliness, but also to protect them from coercive discipline. Nevertheless, even with appropriately prescribed medication, simulants only enable more efficient brain functioning: these students will still need you to adjust their learning environment, curricular content and teaching processes to accommodate their learning deficits. •

•

Children with attention deficits are likely to be more productive in settings that are well organised, with clear procedures and predictable schedules. In classrooms, it can also be useful to seat them in the least distracting location in the room (Lewis & Doorlag 2003), or to give them two desks so that they can regularly change location, thus relieving surrounding peers of their disruptive influence. In terms of curricular content, students with attention deficits will need intensive instruction in problem solving (Purdie et al. 2002) and self-restraint skills, such as using an ‘inside’ voice, settling to activities, taking turns and raising a hand before answering a question (Merrell & Wolfe 1998; Rogers 2003), as well as remediation of their associated learning difficulties (e.g. language or reading impairments). To counteract this focus on their difficulties,


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


•

121

they also need ample opportunities to demonstrate their strengths (Lewis & Doorlag 2003). Teaching and learning processes will need to be modified so that students’ attention problems do not impede their ability to profit from instruction. They need to be actively engaged in learning, in contrast to passive listening, receive simplified instructions in short bursts, be allocated extra time to complete tasks, and be given assistance to structure activities and manage transitions. Fidget items can help them concentrate while sitting still. When their attention difficulties are accompanied by hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour, they will need social support and intervention for any aggression (see chapter 8).

Aside from the ‘bright but bored’ students described earlier and the occasional clowning in class, these educational interventions are based on the assumption that students who are chronically disruptive want to achieve in school but cannot. A solution-focused approach chooses to think the best of students; not assuming that they are ‘bad’ but rather that they have neurological impairments or other limitations causing their learning difficulties. Nevertheless, this approach is not fatalistic; it recognises that for every student with dyslexia who cannot read, there are plenty more who can (Wagner & Watkins 2005). Therefore, to counteract the problem-saturated description of students as ‘learning disabled’, a solution-focused intervention would highlight the attributes they use to help themselves to learn other skills (the exceptions), and support them to transfer these learning skills to the tasks that they are finding difficult (Wagner & Watkins 2005). For example, if they can apply themselves to practising football, their same application abilities can help them learn to read. Another option is to externalise the learning difficulty (see chapter 4). Addressing their problem as an external entity rather than as some inbuilt flaw gives them permission to overcome it. It could be that ‘Squirmies’, ‘Rushing’ or ‘Guessing’ make them unsuccessful, for example (Huntley 1999). And, as mentioned in chapter 4, sometimes these problems have allies that team up with them and cause further oppression, such as ‘Selfdoubt’ or ‘Self-criticism’ (Morgan 2000).

Behavioural guidance The behavioural disruptions that accompany students’ attention deficits, particularly when accompanied by hyperactivity and impulsivity, contribute to teacher stress (Kokkinos 2007). Students are also disadvantaged by being labelled as ‘disruptive’. They often experience teacher rejection, receiving four times more negative than positive feedback and receiving fewer positive responses to their contributions during instruction (Stormont 2002; Strein, Simonson & Vail 1999; Tucker et al. 2002).


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

122


This population of students also form the core of those most likely to be subjected to verbal abuse by teachers (Brendgen, Wanner & Vitaro 2006; Delfabbro et al. 2006). Repeated reprimands of these students signals to onlookers that their chastised peer is less worthy of their friendship, thus exacerbating their social isolation. According to the solution-focused approach, problematic behaviour persists when everyday developmental challenges or crises are accidentally mishandled. Subsequently, when the problem worsens, people try harder to solve it, but the harder they try, the worse it gets (Murphy 2006). Adults’ methods – which were aimed at solving the problem – unintentionally maintain or intensify it (Amatea 1988; Amatea & Sherrard 1991; Fisch et al. 1982). This leads to a recursive cycle of problems and attempted solutions (as illustrated in Figure 7.1) whereby the student disrupts, you attempt to correct the behaviour, the student resists your correction, you respond to that reaction... and so on. Thus, you each are caught up in doing ‘the same damn thing over and over’ (de Shazer et al. 1986, p. 210). This is no one’s fault: it just happens. The problem is not the dancers, but the dance in which they are engaging. Teacher

Exclusion/suspension

Imposition of time out

Loss of rewards

Instructs for compliance

Anger, coercion

Anger, defiance Disengagement

Active resistance

Belligerence

Student

Aggression

Figure 7.1: A recursive cycle of escalating disruptiveness and coercion Source: Porter (2007a, 2007b, p. 157)

When students and teachers are caught up over a long time in these repetitive cycles of action and reaction, they both feel victimised by the


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


123

other’s behaviour. Students complain of being ‘picked on’ and that it is ‘unfair’. Teachers do likewise (although perhaps using more mature terms). Both parties to this interaction believe that their actions are justified in light of the behaviour of the other person, but this self-righteousness does not help to resolve the difficulty (Cooper & Upton 1991) and may even block them from enacting a new solution on the grounds that they are not the one with the problem. Instead, finding a solution involves changing how individuals are presently responding to the behaviour. Given that the cycle surrounding the behaviour is circular, the search for an initial cause is both fruitless and unnecessary, because there is no beginning or end in a circle. As the starting point does not matter, the place to intervene in this repetitive cycle is with yourself, as explained by an analogy suggested by Fisch and colleagues (1982) who observe that, if you wanted to put an end to a tennis rally, the simplest way would be for you to dispense with your racquet, rather than trying to convince your opponent to concede defeat and surrender. In school-based behavioural difficulties, it is virtually impossible for teachers to convince students to be the one to ‘discard their racquet’: the adults have to initiate the change. A solution-focused approach recognises that, if present solutions were going to work, they would have by now. Given that they have not, in the words of Fisch and colleagues (1982, p. 88) you will need to ‘change a losing game’ or, quite simply, obey the self-evident truth that if something isn’t working, you should stop doing it and try something else instead. Therefore, it is time to abandon rewards and punishments. Despite the fact that these students’ lack of self-control might suggest the need for adults to take charge of them through the delivery of rewards and punishments, even intensive behaviourist interventions with children with ADD produce minimal improvements in their functioning in the classroom and no measurable improvement at home or on any test of academic skill (Barkley et al. 2000). Coercive responses to disruptions can even exacerbate students’ behavioural problems, as illustrated in Figure 7.1 (Johnson et al. 2005). In contrast, adults’ use of a guidance approach improves students’ social skilfulness and reduces their antisocial and defiant behaviour (Hinshaw 2006). This method involves the use of time away, in which students who have become overwhelmed and consequently disruptive can withdraw to a pleasant location where they can enjoy activities that soothe them, returning to class once they have recovered their emotional balance. They could even choose to take along a friend to whom to vent their feelings. For behaviourists, this might sound like a reward for poor behaviour, but the rationale is to teach students to regain control of their emotions, for which only two methods are known to the human race: get


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

124


some emotional support from a friend, or do something soothing. The method is about teaching self-control, not about punishing students for lacking self-regulation skills (see Porter 2007a, 2007b, 2008).

Adjust your attributions Attributions are explanations for the outcomes of events. When attempting to explain students’ behavioural disruptions, your attributions will focus either on your students or yourself and, accordingly, will influence how you respond. When you blame students’ behaviour on causes beyond their control (such as a disability or family adversity), you are likely to be sympathetic, warm and supportive, expecting less of them in light of their circumstances. However, while positively motivated, this entrenches the students’ own attributions about their personal incapacities and can cause you to expend less effort to ensure that they are successful at school, with the result that they may not engage and will make little progress. This would only confirm your low expectations (Tollefson 2000). On the other hand, when you regard the source of their problems as being internal to students – for example, assuming that they are being deliberately disruptive – you may tend to become angry and, in turn, less willing to help, you may deliver more negative feedback and administer more punitive discipline (Martin et al. 1999; Scott-Little & Holloway 1992; Stormont 2002; Tollefson 2000; Weiner 2000). The result is a downward spiral of adult coercion and child resistance (as illustrated in Figure 7.1). Your deteriorating relationship is likely to cause a decline in influence over your students’ learning or behaviour. Nevertheless, while excusing or blaming your students is not ideal, neither is blaming yourself, because self-criticism paralyses rather than energises. The conclusion, therefore, is that you need to focus on strategies rather than on finding a culprit. According to this way of thinking, the persistence of problems merely indicates the need to change strategy, rather than signalling a personal failure of your students, their parents, or yourself.

Build improved relationships with disruptive students Some parents believe that their children’s behaviours are incited or exacerbated by difficult work demands or unfair disciplinary or teaching practices at school (Roffey 2002). They want to see you focusing sincerely on their child’s positive attributes. As for the students themselves, in a context of coercive attempts to make them change their behaviour, they are not likely to be motivated to change how they are acting. They will not volunteer that they have a problem, as that would be an admission


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


125

that they are damaged; instead, they will blame their teachers. Arguments about who is at fault are irrelevant, however, because interactions between teachers and students are cyclical. When teachers modify their side of the interaction, students will have to change in response. Therefore, building a more positive relationship with students with disruptive behaviour will not only reduce their disruptiveness, but will also help build rapport with those parents who feel that the school is victimising (‘picking on’) their child. In order to build more constructive relationships with troublesome students, in everyday interactions you can use a method known as ‘storming the back door’. This involves acknowledging something positive or neutral about students or their behaviour, without focusing at all on the problem (Molnar & Lindquist 1989). Because all interactions are linked, changing any one interaction – even when it has nothing to do with the problem – alters your relationship with the students and in turn changes the problem. A behaviourist approach to managing student behaviour advises adults to record how often problems occur, impose controlling discipline, then count again if there has been an improvement in the rate of problems. The solution-focused approach recommends the opposite focus. It recognises that when teachers are frustrated with students’ continuing behavioural difficulties, it is easy for them to overlook the times when the problem could have occurred but did not, or was less severe than usual. You might recall from chapter 4 that these occasions are called ‘exceptions’. In order to gain a more positive perspective that honours rather than discounts students’ successes, the solution-focused approach advises you to record these instances (McGlone 2001).

Garner support for yourself When they have internal and external resources for surmounting obstacles, individuals can face challenges without experiencing stress. Guided by a parent-driven model, your first source of support is parents themselves. You can exchange information with them about what works and does not work for each of you. If their child has received a formal diagnosis of an attention-deficit disorder, you can, with their permission, also gain information by speaking directly to his or her medical and developmental specialists. A second source of support is your principal and other colleagues. You will be protected from reacting with stress when you can contribute to decisions and feel sufficiently experienced and confident about responding to disruptive behaviours – that is, when you have high collective and personal efficacy (Nelson et al. 2001). You can receive formal collegial support in the form of case conferences aimed at planning a solution to


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

126


chronic disruptiveness. Whereas most case conferences merely confirm a student’s negative reputation and entrench teachers’ feelings of hopelessness through their almost exclusive focus on problems, solution-focused case conferences instead follow the format outlined in chapter 4. That is, they describe the problem, formulate goals, discuss present interventions and identify which of these has worked by highlighting exceptions and noting what is happening when the student is not behaving disruptively, and then plan to do more of what is working. Each teacher involved with the student can rate his or her behaviour on a scale of 1 to 10 before, during and after a planned intervention. The different ratings by various teachers and by the same teacher in different contexts help identify what contributes to the higher ratings, can clarify what goal is realistic (‘What rating would you settle for?’) and, later, can document progress (Harker 2001).

Support for parents In my experience, you are likely to encounter more than the usual difficulties if your intention is to use a professional-driven or family-allied approach to recruiting the support of parents whose children’s disruptive behaviour is associated with attention deficits. This is because there is a high genetic component to these conditions (Auerbach et al. 2005; Glanzman & Blum 2007; Groot et al. 2004; Hinshaw 2006; Stein et al. 2002), which means that many parents themselves are likely to have similar difficulties. In cases in which this is true, these parents may have experienced considerable failure and resulting low self-esteem during their own schooling, and as a consequence they may be reluctant to engage with you to resolve their children’s current difficulties. Even without such a history themselves, some may believe that their child’s difficulties reflect their own failings and, consequently, are reluctant to expose themselves to outside scrutiny and potential criticism (Grolnick et al. 1997). More so with this population than with others, you cannot expect parents to follow up at home any school-based interventions. Children’s behavioural difficulties make home-based interventions very demanding on any parent (Coots 1998), but those whose children have attention deficits and highly disruptive behaviours experience particularly elevated stress levels (Sheridan, Dwyer & Sanders 1997; Williford et al. 2007). Compounding this, parents who share their children’s condition may have difficulties structuring everyday family life, with household chaos unconducive to preparing their children for a school day. Against this background, any attempt to impose an alien routine may add intolerably to their stress, especially when you consider other adversities that they may be navigating, such as economic hardship or the presence of siblings with similar problems.


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


127

In turn, added stress can endanger their children because parents who have attention deficits can have shorter fuses when parenting (Whalen et al. 2006). This causes them to use coercive discipline. You must be sure, therefore, not to add to the family’s stress levels, as just described, and also to state clearly when informing parents of incidents that the problems are occurring at school and therefore can only be solved there. You need to reiterate that you do not want the parents to punish their child at home for events that occur at school. On rare occasions when you cannot be certain that their child will be safe should you disclose an incident, it can be wise to limit how much you tell parents. A second constraint on how much to tell parents is the need for a balance of information. If all that parents receive from you is a daily barrage of complaints about their child, they will become defensive (Roffey 2002). Moreover, you must avoid the sense in parents that they or their child is being victimised. This makes methods such as ‘storming the back door’ and recording exceptions particularly vital. The stigma of having a troublesome child detracts from parents’ power to advocate for him or her (Fylling & Sandvin 1999). Therefore, guided by a parent-driven approach, you will need to take extra steps to foster these parents’ self-efficacy (see chapter 1). This will entail respecting their tenacity in the face of their difficulties and, when requested, providing information about the attention deficits and parenting strategies that might lessen their load. Their reduced confidence in their ability to handle the extra parenting demands of a challenging child can also mean that they need emotional support, particularly as their child’s behavioural difficulties can isolate them from the informal supports of the wider parent body (Fylling & Sandvin 1999).

Conclusion Attention and accompanying behavioural difficulties can impair students’ academic functioning, cause deteriorating relationships with their teachers and classmates, and contaminate interactions between their teachers and parents (Hughes & Kwok 2007). Your joint problem-solving approach should be based on recognition that you and their parents share a common interest in their child’s wellbeing and, with respect to behavioural difficulties, you both want relief from the problem. Your main intervention, however, will be to assist these students’ learning difficulties as these are the source of their behavioural problems. Although these students will need some behavioural guidance, the aim will be to teach them self-regulation skills so that you prevent future transgressions, rather than to punish them for lacking skill or in retribution for their past misdeeds.


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

128


Additional resources Green, C. & Chee, K. (2001). Understanding ADHD: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Doubleday. Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Porter, L. (2007). Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Also published as Behaviour in schools: Theory and practice for teachers. (2nd ed.) Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Porter, L. (2008). Young children’s behaviour: Practical approaches for caregivers and teachers. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Elsevier/London: SAGE/ Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

For parents Porter, L. (2006). Children are people too: A parent’s guide to young children’s behaviour. (4th ed.) Adelaide, SA: East Street Publications.


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

8

Collaborating with parents to solve school-based aggression and bullying

The objective… is not to change people and their behavior in order to get our way; it is to establish relationships based on honesty and empathy which will eventually fulfill everyone’s needs. Hart & Hodson (2004, p. 91)

The second class of behavioural difficulties to challenge teachers, after attention difficulties and their resulting disruptions, is student aggression (Rescorla et al. 2007). Aggressiveness is an intention to inflict harm on another. Contrary to expectation, however, it is not the opposite of social competence, as individuals who are the most dominant are also the most socially competent. That is to say, although aggressive young people employ domineering behaviour strategically to gain access to scarce resources and social influence, they also display high levels of pro-social behaviour (Vaughn et al. 2003). Aggression is not only a problem for its victims, for the teachers who have to deal with it and for the contagion effect whereby others copy aggressive peers. It also earns a negative reputation for perpetrators that leads to their neglect or rejection by pro-social peers and lowers their academic grades. Aggression accounts for as much as 16 per cent of grade variance between students (Loveland, Lounsbury & Welsh 2007).

Developmental trends in aggression Aggression gains access for perpetrators to resources and status and, as such, serves a vital survival function. Therefore, it is not surprising that it occurs at high rates in our species. As a result of the emergence in infants of anger, frustration and an understanding of cause and effect, physical aggression appears during the latter half of the first year of life, resulting in its use by around half of all one-year olds, with 5 per cent displaying

129


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM

130


high levels (Alink et al. 2006; Baillargeon et al. 2007b; Côté et al. 2007; Loeber & Hay 1997). Infants’ developing mobility permits more frequent peer interaction, but they still lack language proficiency. The result is that, at one year of age, half of their interactions are negative (Deynoot-Schaub & Riksen-Walraven 2006; Vaughn et al. 2003). Physical aggression peaks somewhere between 24 and 42 months of age, following which it begins to decline steadily in both frequency and severity as a result of socialisation, the emergence of self-regulation, empathy and moral reasoning (Kochanska, Coy & Murray 2001) and children’s improved capacity to use language to solve conflicts (Baillargeon et al. 2007a; Côté et al. 2006; Deynoot-Schaub & Riksen-Walraven 2006; Gilliom et al. 2002; Rubin et al. 2003; Shaw et al. 2003; Tremblay 2004). After 30 months, the number of children’s negative interactions decreases while their positive interactions increase in number (DeynootSchaub & Riksen-Walraven 2006; Vaughn et al. 2003). This decline is most apparent for girls (Loeber & Hay 1997). Even by 18 months of age, highly physically aggressive boys out-number girls by a ratio of 5 to 1, which ratio persists throughout life (Baillargeon et al. 2007b). Thus, reasonably high rates of aggressive behaviours are normal prior to three years of age, but become less common after that (Côté et al. 2006; Hay, Payne & Chadwick 2004; Schaeffer et al. 2003; Shaw et al. 2003). At school entry, the majority of children exhibit low to moderate levels of aggression that remain stable or decline steadily through the early and middle school years (Côté et al. 2006; Ingoldsby et al. 2006; Nagin & Tremblay 1999; Zhou et al. 2007). In contrast to this normal trajectory, problematic aggression follows two patterns: early and late-onset. The early onset group comprises roughly 6 to 10 per cent of children and is characterised by moderate and increasing rates of aggression in early childhood that is maintained into adolescence (Ingoldsby et al. 2006; van Lier, Wanner & Vitaro 2007). As many as 60 per cent of three-year-olds who have severe antisocial behaviours maintain these high rates into the early school years and beyond (Campbell 1995; Campbell, Shaw & Gilliom 2000). The second pattern, late-onset aggression, occurs when moderate levels of antisocial behaviour escalate during early adolescence. This mainly occurs when young people associate with increasingly delinquent peers (van Lier et al. 2007). The risk that they will do so is higher in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Ingoldsby et al. 2006), although neighbourhood quality does not explain all of the reasons for their choice of antisocial friends. In contrast, early childhood aggression persists or declines according to whether young children learn to regulate their feelings and to sustain attention (Eisenberg et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2006). Parents’ responsiveness to their children teaches skills in self-regulation which, over time, leads to fewer aggressive and destructive behaviours, improved cooperation with


15/1/08 11:47:41 AM


131

others and more appropriate self-assertion (that is, assertiveness that does not escalate into defiance) (Crockenberg & Litman 1990; Donovan et al. 2000; Gilliom et al. 2002; Hart, DeWolf & Burts 1992). In contrast, impairments in self-regulation result from insensitive, unresponsive or harsh parenting (Aguilar et al. 2000; Belsky et al. 1998; Brown et al. 2007; Campbell 1995; Campbell et al. 1991a, 1991b; Casas et al. 2006; Chronis et al. 2007; Côté et al. 2007; Diener et al. 2003; Hart et al. 1992; Ingoldsby et al. 2006; Lansford et al. 2006; López et al. 2006; McFadyenKetchum et al. 1996; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005; Parke et al. 2004; Petterson & Albers 2001; Qi & Kaiser 2003; Romano et al. 2005; Shaw, Bell & Gilliom 2000; Smeekens, Riksen-Walraven & van Bakel 2007; Smith & Farrington 2004; Thompson, Hollis & Richards 2003; Vitaro, Brendgen & Tremblay 2002; Vitaro et al. 2005, 2006). This considerable body of research is unanimous in concluding that a controlling, hostile and rejecting style of discipline fails to teach children self-regulatory skills and pro-social means of solving problems, resulting in their escalating and ongoing antisocial behaviour (Coldwell, Pike & Dunn 2006; Côté et al. 2006; Fergusson, Horwood & Ridder 2005; López et al. 2006; Miller-Lewis et al. 2006; O’Leary et al. 1999; Romano et al. 2005; Rubin et al. 2003; Shaw et al. 2003; Smeekens et al. 2007; Tremblay 2004; van Lier et al. 2007). These findings with parents have been replicated in centre-based care (Feldman & Klein 2003; Porter 1999) and in schools, where punitive discipline has been found to produce higher rates of disruptive behaviour than in schools with more egalitarian discipline (Rutter 1983). Given the robustness of this body of research, it is crucial that aggressive students do not receive negative responses from teachers, as this would only perpetuate the behavioural difficulties of these anger-prone and emotionally reactive children (Belsky et al. 1998; Letcher et al. 2004; Shaw et al. 2000).

Types of aggression As illustrated in Figure 8.1 (page 132), there are three types of aggression: reactive, proactive and bullying. Bullying is distinguished from aggression by being repeated and targeted at particular victims. The distinction between these three types is important, as they each require slightly different interventions.

Reactive aggression Reactive aggression occurs in retaliation against a real or imagined provocation or threat, and arises from feelings of anger or frustration (Hubbard 2001; Prinstein & Cillessen 2003; Vitaro et al. 2006). However, beyond the age of three years, children should be starting to develop self-


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

132


Aggression

Proactive

Bullying

UÊ>VÊLi>ÛÕÀ>ÊÃivVÌÀ Ê VÌÀÊvÊ«ÕÃiÃ® UÊ6>ÕiÊ>}}ÀiÃÃ

,i«i>Ìi`ÊÌ>À}iÌ}ÊvÊ ÛÕiÀ>LiÊ«iiÀÃÊÊÀi>VÌÊÌÊ ÌiÀÊLi>ÛÕÀÊÀÊ«À>VÌÛiÞÊ ÌÊViiÌÊi½ÃÊÃÌ>ÌÕÃ]ÊÀÊvÀÊ iÌiÀÌ>iÌ

Reactive UÊ Ì>ÞÊ¼LÀÌÌi½ UÊ>VÊiÌ>ÊÃivVÌÀ UÊ1`iÀiÃÌ>ÌiÊÌiÀÊ Ê >}}ÀiÃÃÛiiÃÃ UÊÃ>Ìi`ÊÃV>Þ

Dominant UÊ}ÊÀ>ÌiÃÊvÊ«ÀÃV> Ê Li>ÛÕÀ UÊ6ÃLiÊLÕÌÊ`Ãi` UÊ}ÊÃiviÃÌii

Troubled UÊÜÊÀ>ÌiÃÊvÊ«ÀÃV> Ê Li>ÛÕÀ UÊ,iiVÌi`ÊLÞÊ«iiÀÃ UÊ}ÊÃV>ÊLÕÌÊÜÊ Ê >V>`iVÊÃiviÃÌii

Figure 8.1: Types of aggression

control and employ language skills in place of hitting out at others. That they have not done so reflects difficulties in managing their own emotional arousal (Denham et al. 2002; Frick et al. 2003; Rubin et al. 2003; Vitaro et al. 2006). Despite their aggressive exterior, reactively aggressive children have been described as ‘brittle’, in the sense that they are more easily distressed, are overly sensitive to threat, have low tolerance for frustration, display poor problem-solving and coping skills and elevated levels of hostility (Camodeca & Goossens 2005; Crick, Grotpeter & Bigbee 2002; de Castro et al. 2002; Little et al. 2003; MacKinnon-Lewis, Rabiner & Starnes 1999; Prinstein & Cillessen 2003; Vaughn et al. 2003). They have an external locus of causality (low self-efficacy), and therefore they blame others for provoking them, while underestimating and failing to take responsibility for their own aggressiveness (Lochman et al. 2006; Miller, Brehm & Whitehouse 1998; Nelson et al. 2006; Yoon et al. 2000). These children exaggerate the consequences of affronts to their dignity, employing defeatist thinking, which claims that they ‘cannot stand’ another’s behaviour, and therefore they react as though threatened even when little or no threat exists. These dysregulated children tend to display behavioural difficulties across settings (Eisenberg et al. 2005). Although having initially lower and declining rates of aggression over time, when compared with the


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


133

proactively aggressive children (Little et al. 2003), nevertheless this group is more isolated because their actions are directed against others (Bukowski 2003) and because they become disorganised when provoked. The result is that they display emotions inappropriately (both distress and glee at, say, defeating a playmate), and disengage or otherwise behave oddly in social settings, which their peers regard as inappropriate for both age and situation (Hubbard 2001; Leary & Katz 2005). Therefore, their peers usually dislike them (LaFontana & Cillessen 2002; Prinstein & Cillessen 2003).

Proactive aggression The second type of aggression is proactive. It does not require anger or provocation, but is an attempt to gain access to resources, or to secure or cement aggressors’ social dominance (Vitaro et al. 2002). Those who are proactively, physically aggressive are taught through parental control and discipline to value using aggression, find it easy to do so and have an inflated view of their own capacities. Thus, they expect to be successful in achieving their goals, all of which account for their stable rates of aggression over time (Camodeca & Goossens 2005; Coie et al. 1999; Egan, Monson & Perry 1998; Vitaro et al. 2006). Children’s frequent use of proactive aggression by school age signals not that they are out of control of their emotions, but are failing to regulate their behaviour, particularly their impulses (Frick et al. 2003). Proactive aggressors are of two types. The first group are those ‘tough’ boys and dominant girls with socially valued characteristics such as physical attractiveness or athleticism, and whose aggression is accompanied by high rates of pro-social behaviour. Even from their toddler years, they are more active and engaged, and more socially and cognitively mature than less assertive youngsters. Therefore they tend to have the social finesse to gain access to activities, while also being able to use aggression strategically (Hawley & Little 1999). Many proactive aggressors are outgoing and confident, enjoying a wide base of peer support both within and beyond their clique (Pellegrini, Bartini & Brooks 1999; Rodkin & Hodges 2003). Rather than being socially inept, their broad popularity gives them the ‘social authority’ to control the peer relationships around them (Crick & Grotpeter 1995). They understand people very well and use this information to their own advantage (Espelage & Swearer 2003). As a result, others defer to them and they acquire the status of being central and influential members of prominent cliques, which position they exploit to dominate others. However, while highly visible or central in their groups and seen to be ‘cool’, these youngsters are nevertheless disliked (Cillessen & Mayeux 2004; Farmer et al. 2003; LaFontana & Cillessen 2002; Ostrov et al. 2004; Prinstein & Cillessen 2003; Rodkin et al. 2000; Rose, Swenson & Waller 2004; Young,


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

134


Boye & Nelson 2006), particularly when their dominating behaviours are accompanied by physical aggression (Merrell, Buchanan & Tran 2006). The second group of proactive aggressors are the ‘troubled’ aggressive children who have reduced levels of social skills and pro-social behaviour, and who tend to be disliked by their peers, particularly in groups where aggression is uncommon (Chang 2004; Hay et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2000; Rodkin et al. 2000; Stormshak et al. 1999). They may initially approach others often, but their overtures are rejected because they are less cooperative and their actions disrupt others’ activities. As a result, over time these children initiate social contact less often, become increasingly isolated from pro-social peers and therefore gravitate towards those who are socially marginal (Arnold, McWilliams & Arnold 1998; Dodge 1983; Farver 1996; Hartup 1989; Hartup & Moore 1990; Hay et al. 2004). Despite their unpopularity, however, these students’ social self-esteem is high because they value dominance, which their aggression helps them achieve (Frankel & Myatt 1996). They tend to form friendships with similarly aggressive peers, who then reinforce each other’s antisocial behaviours (Poulin & Boivin 2000). Although their friends provide them with emotional support, these friendships comprise more hostility and aggression than usual (Coie et al. 1999; Hay et al. 2004).

Bullying Bullying is distinguished from simple aggression by its repeated and targeted nature. It can be reactive to a real or imagined injustice supposedly inflicted by the target of the bullying, such as in revenge for aggression, for gossiping or poaching of same or opposite-sex friends (Owens, Shute & Slee 2000b). However, most bullying is proactive, whereby perpetrators target others who are generally younger or weaker than themselves in gratuitous, unjustified, deliberate and repeated attempts to oppress, dominate and inflict hurt (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd 2001; Rigby 2006a; Slee 1995a, 1995b; Slee & Rigby 1994; Smith & Sharp 1994). Bullying is so widespread that, ‘[n]o study of social behaviour in any school anywhere in the world has shown an absence of bullying’ (Noble 2006, p. 68). Yet, for a range of research and definitional reasons, firm rates of bullying are difficult to establish, although figures tend to settle on up to 10 per cent being victims, 13 per cent perpetrators and 6 per cent being both (Espelage & Swearer 2003; Nansel et al. 2001; Olweus 1993), with this last group of bully-victims declining in number from middle to late primary school (Golberg, Olweus & Endresen 2007). The consensus is that almost one in five school students is subjected to bullying at least once a week and over half experience it during their school lives, with a third saying that it makes them feel unsafe at school (Delfabbro et al. 2006; Demaray &


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


135

Malecki 2003; Pepler et al. 1993; Rigby 1996; Slee 1994b, 1998; Smith & Sharp 1994; Tattum 1993a). It appears that bullying is most prevalent towards the end of primary school and the beginning of secondary school (Espelage & Swearer 2003; Marsh et al. 2004; Rigby 1996; Slee 1994a, 1994b). Most takes place in the playground, with one third occurring on the way to and from school, although this usually involves those who are being bullied in school as well (Boulton 1997; Olweus 1993).

Box 8.1 Effects and signs of victimisation from bullying Physical signs • unexplained physical injuries • unexplained damage to clothing and property • disappearance of money • sleeping difficulties, resulting in tiredness at school • loss of appetite • are unusually ravenous when they come home from school (having had their lunch stolen). Social signs Although students typically recover from the emotional effects of short-lived bullying in childhood, protracted victimisation at any age, or victimisation in adolescence, can have a persistent social impact characterised by social mistrust and alienation. • involvement in quarrels or fights in which individuals appear defenceless • being recipients of constant teasing • isolation at recess and lunch times • trying to stay close to adults at recess and lunch times • seeking to escape by joining other friendship groups • lacking out-of-school-hours contact with classmates • receiving few invitations to social gatherings of peers • might retaliate, but this can exacerbate – and be seen to justify – peers’ subsequent victimisation of them • elevated levels of aggression • increased delinquency in adolescence. Emotional signs At the time of direct or covert attacks, victims are likely to feel confusion at why they have been targeted, followed by covering up or denying the reality of their victimisation or, perhaps less adaptively, blaming themselves for it. Subsequently, they may admit to their misery, which spans:

➡


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

136


• • • • • • • • • • •

feeling distressed, anxious, subdued, unhappy or tearful but refusing to say what is wrong feelings of isolation, unhappiness and loneliness changes in mood and behaviour explosive anger low self-esteem (especially in the social domain) impaired self-efficacy depressive tendencies and suicidal ideation fear of going to school requests to leave the school victims become intimidated and lack confidence and therefore are less likely to seek social support or report the abuse to adults fear for future relationships.

Academic signs The main academic effect of being rejected or victimised by classmates is academic disengagement, characterised by: • sudden difficulty asking or answering questions in class • decline in school performance (output) and/or processes such as concentration • reduced participation in class activities • absenteeism, particularly when harassment is prolonged • leaving school altogether. Health signs Reactions to extended bullying can be similar to those found in posttraumatic stress, with effects persisting even after victims of extended harassment have escaped the abusive setting. • victims of persistent bullying experience increased health complaints, possibly because stress undermines immune system’s functioning • increased alcohol, nicotine and marijuana use by victims, either to cope with stress or in an effort to gain entry to a delinquent peer group. Sources: Buhs, Ladd & Herald 2006; Egan & Perry 1998; Espelage & Swearer 2003; Fekkes et al. 2006; Field & Carroll 2006; Graham, Bellmore & Mize 2006; Hunter & Boyle 2004; Juvonen, Nishina & Graham 2000; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd 2001; Marsh et al. 2004; Martin & Huebner 2007; Murray-Close, Ostrov & Crick 2007; Mynard, Joseph & Alexander 2000; Nansel et al. 2001; Olweus 1993; O’Moore & Minton 2004; Owens, Slee & Shute 2000c; Rigby 1996, 1999, 2001, 2006a; Scholte et al. 2007; Schwartz et al. 2005; Slee 1995a, 1995b; Slee & Rigby 1994; Smith et al. 2004; Sullivan, Farrell & Kliewer 2006; Sweeting et al. 2007.


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


137

Bullying arises when students have superior psychological strength to their victims. As with proactive aggressors in general, young physical bullies overestimate their social competence, while many adolescent relational bullies are perceived as ‘cool’ by their peers; for both reasons they have friends and their social self-esteem is high, although their academic selfesteem is typically lower (Graham et al. 2006; López et al. 2006; Nansel et al. 2001; Scholte et al. 2007). As a result of their behaviour, physically aggressive bullies have many disciplinary encounters with teachers, whose treatment they perceive as unfair. Their negative attitude towards institutional authority leads to declining academic engagement (Graham et al. 2006; López et al. 2006). Aggressive bully-victims are the most disadvantaged in school as they do not enjoy the social benefits of being aggressive and ‘cool’, they experience lowered self-esteem as a result of blaming themselves for being victimised, perceive unfair treatment from teachers when they react aggressively to being victimised, and they commonly have low academic achievement (Graham et al. 2006; Nansel et al. 2001).

Types of bullying Although early literature on the subject focused mainly on physical bullying, recent research has examined its more furtive forms. Direct, open or overt bullying comprises direct physical attacks such as pushing, shoving, punching, tripping up, damaging the victim’s clothing or possessions, and striking with or without weapons. Extortion entails the extraction of money or other possessions under threat, or being forced to commit antisocial or illegal acts such as theft or vandalism. A form with particular social aims, known as relational bullying, entails threatening to damage a relationship if the target does not do as directed. Relational bullying establishes, maintains and strengthens group cohesion by manipulating who is ‘in’ and excluding outsiders, thus creating boundaries between groups (Bukowski 2003; Bukowski & Sippola 2001; McMillan & Chavis 1986; Nishina 2004; Owens et al. 2000b). It is also a strategy for establishing power or dominance within groups, gaining dominant members access to resources: in early childhood to toys; by adolescence, access to peer status and to heterosexual relationships (Pellegrini 2004). Third, adolescents use relational bullying proactively to alleviate boredom or create excitement (Owens et al. 2000b). Relational bullying can be direct, in the form of verbal attacks such as taunting, name calling or using a person consistently as the butt of jokes (O’Moore & Minton 2004), or can encompass more surreptitious behaviours such as those listed in Box 8.2 (page 138). These become increasingly covert and subtle as children mature (Shute, Owens & Slee 2002).


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

138


Box 8.2 Exclusionary manoeuvres • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ignoring someone briefly or for extended periods outright, prolonged ostracism hiding from, and thus isolating, particular peers blocking a child’s access to play prematurely terminating play once a particular peer enters restricting children’s access to other peers or to play equipment restricting or threatening to restrict a peer’s access to social events, as in, ‘You can’t come to my birthday party’ dominating or bossing peers during play placing constraints on a friendship: ‘You can’t be my friend unless ...’ gossiping telling secrets or circulating shared confidences using hurtful nicknames that parody a person’s personal characteristics manipulating group acceptance by invoking a third party to collude in exclusion, as in, ‘We’re not playing with her, are we?’ talking about others behind their backs using code names for victims which they suspect refer to themselves spreading malicious rumours threatening to expose shared confidences leaving anonymous messages in notes, emails, phone messages or web sites displaying public affection such as huddles, loud talk and extravagant greetings with only the ‘in’ members of a clique employing nonverbal signals that are aimed at conveying disgust or anger while asserting one’s own power or status. These include stares, ‘bitchy’ looks, looking someone up and down in a disparaging manner, rolling the eyes, using a sarcastic tone of voice and tossing the head in ‘telegraphic’ displays of emotion. Sources: Crick et al. 2001; Deater-Deckard 2001; James & Owens 2005; Olweus 1993; Ostrov et al. 2004; Owens, Shute & Slee 2000a; Owens, Slee & Shute 2001; Rigby 1996, 1998; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen & Lagerspetz 1998; Shute et al. 2002; Slee 1995b; Smith & Sharp 1994; Tattum 1993a.

The nonverbal means of relational bullying, in particular, ensure that it remains covert, allowing perpetrators to disguise their aggressive intentions and providing deniability (James & Owens 2004). The bullying has


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


139

maximum effect on the victim with minimum risk to the perpetrator, as any reaction or report can be met with accusations that the victim is paranoid, while those victims who react aggressively can themselves get into trouble with teachers. Further relational bullying can be inflicted on the victim in retaliation for reporting or for appearing unable to be assertive on his or her own behalf (Newman & Murray 2005; Scholte et al. 2007). Electronic means are particularly pernicious, as the instigator may never be identified and the victimisation occurs at home as well as at school (Raskauskas & Stoltz 2007). It can entail using text messaging, emails or websites to defame, threaten the target, circulate rumours or circulate compromising photos taken on mobile phones. It seems that the majority (94 per cent) of perpetrators who use electronic media to bully also use traditional means, while 84 per cent of electronic victims are traditional victims also (Raskauskas & Stoltz 2007). Although schools could argue that they can do nothing about Internet bulling, the school is where perpetrators select their victims (Raskauskas & Stoltz 2007). Therefore, both school policy and interventions need to protect victims on this medium as well as in its more traditional forms. A final form of bullying is sexual harassment, to which both genders are subjected, but females in particular. It involves sexually toned, verbal comments about girls’ physical appearance, circulation of rumours affecting students’ sexual reputation, physical touching, pressure to engage in unwanted sexual behaviour (including rape), and visual harassment such as using pornography or defacing school posters of females to embarrass or intimidate them (Drouet 1993; Fineran 2001; Owens, Shute & Slee 2005). Girls may be required to perform favours (not necessarily sexual) at the threat of having sexual rumours spread about them. Most perpetrators of such forms of heterosexual harassment are males, who use these acts to gain status with their male peers while regarding their taunts as jokes or as flattering to females. However, their victims find them threatening and nasty, and may feel obliged to avoid areas in which males congregate (Owens et al. 2005). A particular class of sexual harassment focuses on the recipient’s sexual orientation, targeting gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents with verbal and physical bullying (Bontempo & D’Augelli 2002; Fineran 2001; Murdock & Bolch 2005; Rivers 2001). Sexual minority adolescents often endure not only the interpersonal bullying of school peers, but also mobbing by unknown assailants and continuous sociocultural, heterosexist harassment about their sexual orientation (Fineran 2001; Henning-Stout, James & Macintosh 2000). The combination of a homophobic school climate, low teacher support and elevated levels of victimisation contributes to a hostile learning environment for all students. But for its victims, in particular, it


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

140


reduces their sense of safety within school and results in declining academic performance, elevated truancy rates and increased high-risk behaviours such as smoking, use of illicit drugs, sexually risky behaviour and suicide attempts (Bontempo & D’Augelli 2002; Fineran 2001; Murdock & Bolch 2005).

Responding to the concerns of parents of victims Parents of victims will expect a systematic response to end the current victimisation of their child and prevent future incidents. This, too, will be your first aim of intervention – that is, to protect victims from actual harm and from the social isolation that can accompany being a recipient of aggression (Ostrov et al. 2004). You also have an obligation to perpetrators, to protect them from developing a negative reputation because, once in place, reputations are resistant to change even when students’ behaviours improve (Johnson et al. 2000). It is also vital to protect the group from contagious aggression, which will both intimidate reticent children and exacerbate the aggression of those individuals who are prone to antisocial behaviour. Finally, you have a right to have fewer conflicts to handle.

Teach anti-bullying curricula, where relevant Curricular adjustments include ensuring adequate supervision of students without generating a siege atmosphere; providing adequate space; enriching playgrounds for younger students; and offering structured activities at breaks so that older students have something productive to do and therefore are less likely to become aggressive or manipulate relationships by way of entertainment (to ‘stir things up a little’) (Boulton 1994; James & Owens 2005; Leff et al. 2003; Olweus 1993; Owens et al. 2000b; Whitney et al. 1994). Younger students can be receptive to anti-bullying curricula (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen & Voeten 2005). Therefore, primary schools might include anti-bullying themes within regular subject areas, in class meetings, or within their pastoral care program. Half of all bullying involves a group of students with a ringleader harassing a single peer, which is actively supported or not resisted by onlookers (Olweus 1993, 2001). The group nature of these ‘mobs’ results in diffusion of responsibility – that is, being part of a group allows individuals to evade personal awareness of their part in causing the victim’s distress (Olweus 1993; Pikas 2002). Some colluders hold no malice against the victim – and may even feel shame for their actions – but participate in the bullying to avoid becoming victims


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


141

themselves, or to elevate their own status within their clique (James & Owens 2005; Owens et al. 2000b; Rigby 1996). Through raising awareness, the most significant reduction in bullying can be achieved by mobilising these empathic bystanders to give less assistance to bullies and instead to defend victims (Salmivalli et al. 2005). They will, of course, need reminders to seek adult help if intervening could inflame the situation or further endanger the victim or themselves (Rigby & Bagshaw 2006). Such anti-bullying curricula can improve attitudes to bullying even into the high school years (Van Schoiack-Edstrom, Frey & Beland 2002), but they make little impact on bullying behaviour at this age level (Stevens et al. 2000). Moreover, adolescents are contemptuous of such curricula (Owens et al. 2000a). Instead, peer mediation, which trains students to help their peers to negotiate and solve conflicts between them may be suitable at this age, when adolescents’ imperatives to belong and be popular – which give rise to the problem – can also generate its solution. In high school, peer mediation may be more successful than interventions by teachers, particularly given adolescents’ belief that teachers should stay out of their conflicts (James & Owens 2004; Owens et al. 2001; Shute et al. 2002). However, selection, training and supervision of mediators must be handled sensitively so that mediators are not exploited or undermined when antisocial peers denigrate them for colluding with the ‘establishment’ (Smith & Daunic 2002).

Manage group dynamics Bullying persists because it is embedded in systems (families, classrooms and schools) that inadvertently model, maintain and reinforce domination and intimidation (Pepler et al. 1993; Tattum 1993b). Two key aspects of schools that allow bullying to occur are status differences between students and teachers and among the various grade levels of the student population (Nishina 2004), and a school ethos that does not question oppression (Olweus 1993). This includes the oppression of students by teachers – and of teachers by students, parents and colleagues (Rigby 2003; Terry 1998). In such a climate, there will be too few countervailing forces to dissuade students from using their power in aversive ways against vulnerable peers. The first step, then, in establishing a safe school is for teachers to relate fairly with students, both because this is students’ right and also because teacher tolerance will foster acceptance by peers and correspondingly less injustice against them. Within your classroom, a practical measure to improve victims’ acceptance by their peers is to display acceptance and warmth towards isolated students (Rodkin & Hodges 2003). Your positive comments actively help to recruit peer support for them. Given that aggression is less common within stable, cooperative groups, it will be important to foster cohesion within the peer group in


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

142


general (Farver 1996). The practice of ‘looping’, whereby class groupings remain intact – and with the same teacher – for a series of years can help a group to establish a cohesiveness that deflects aggression. Individual students in classes with high rates of aggression themselves become more aggressive over time (Olweus 1993; Rigby 2006a; Rodkin & Hodges 2003; Thomas, Bierman & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2006). Therefore, establishing group norms of non-aggression will also ensure that peers do not emulate each other’s aggressiveness and do not escalate their aggression in stressed responses to hostility from others (Stormshak et al. 1999).

Support victims A third class of responses that parents will expect is support for victims of aggression. They will share your conviction that everyone has a right to feel safe at school. Whereas teachers are clear about their need to intervene in physical attacks, however, they are uncertain about intervening in relational bullying because there is less evidence of tangible harm to its recipient (Young et al. 2006). This could account for the fact that between 25 and 60 per cent of students report that teachers seldom act to protect them (Olweus 1993; Slee 1994a). The first measure, then, is to inform all students how and to whom they can report incidents. Given that you will seldom directly witness relational bullying, you will need to be receptive to students’ reports, particularly about subtle forms of intimidation such as exclusion and nonverbal manipulation (Shute et al. 2002). As reporting can exacerbate recipients’ victimisation, it is crucial where possible to treat victims’ reports as confidential (Newman & Murray 2005). In the immediate aftermath, victims may require first aid for any injuries and also emotional support and empathy at the injustice they have experienced. Subsequently, in order to prevent recurrences, the most successful intervention is to help students to help themselves (Rigby 2001). This is achieved with practical support, which is designed to help students respond appropriately during an incident and enfranchise them to resist future harassment (Demaray & Malecki 2003; Fuller 2006). In the junior primary years, the most successful strategies can be to enlist the support of a friend; by late primary school, conflict-resolution skills such as assertiveness in the form of ‘brave talk’ can be useful in countering bullying (Rigby 1996, 2006b; Sharp & Cowie 1994). An ‘invisibility’ strategy of avoiding those areas where most bullying occurs can be useful until the problem is resolved (Fuller 2006). Solutionfocused conversations could highlight these and other resiliency skills that victims already employ.


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


143

Both emotional and practical support will be particularly necessary for those students who are both victimised and instigators of bullying (‘bullyvictims’) as their aggression is often seen to justify their victimisation, with the result that they typically receive low levels of teacher and peer support (Demaray & Malecki 2003). Aside from these highly reactive victims, bullying and other forms of aggression are not a reflection of victims’ social skill deficits. Other than being physically less equipped to fend off attacks, victims differ little from non-victims (Marsh et al. 2004). The emotional vulnerability that has been thought to attract victimisation seems in large part to be the result of harassment, rather than its cause (Kochenderfer & Ladd 1996; Scholte et al. 2007; Schwartz et al. 2005). Therefore, victims seldom need or benefit from social skills (e.g. assertiveness) training. On the other hand, you might assist them to develop friendships, because the

Box 8.3 A solution-focused approach to assist victims of bullying Preamble Interview the victim, starting with non-problem talk such as what the student would be doing right now if not talking with you. Find out some of his or her interests. Statement of the problem Young people will be reluctant to say that they are being bullied; instead you can bring up the problem by stating that you, another teacher, or the student’s parent is worried about him or her. You can follow this up with the question, ‘Are they right to be worried about you?’ Having received assent that the worry is justified, you will need to state that answers to the next three questions will not get anyone into trouble. These questions are: • ‘Who do you find difficult to deal with at the moment?’ There is no need to ask what the named students are doing, as this can make the conversation deteriorate into problem-saturated talk. • ‘Who else is around when (the named peer) is being difficult?’ This allows you to identify bystanders who could be recruited to help. • ‘Who are your friends?’ or, for those who are now completely isolated from their peer group, ‘Who would you like to be your friend?’ Explain to the victim that you will be recruiting those named to work together to help him or her be happier at school.

➡


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

144


Garner support Meet as a group with the peers named by the victim, explaining that you have chosen them because you know they can help to make the victim happier at school. Do not mention bullying or talk about aggressive incidents, as this could degenerate into accusations of fault and blame. Instead, discuss with them times when they have been unhappy at school and express empathy that it is not easy to be so. Then ask for their suggestions of what can be done to help the focus student. As they raise suggestions, you can compliment those ideas that seem promising while checking that they are realistic: ‘That’s a good idea. Would that be difficult or easy for you to do?’ When in reply students volunteer that it would not be difficult, you can compliment them on their kindness. While not asking them to be friends with the focus student or demanding a commitment to carrying out the suggestions, you can end this session with a comment that you think their plan will work to make the victim happier at school. Review A week later, meet with the victim to hear what has been better over the past week and ask how he or she managed to make that happen (e.g. responding to or trusting the friendlier overtures of the former bullies). Also contact the student’s parents for their feedback about his or her progress. Next, meet with the support group (of former perpetrators, bystanders and potential or actual friends) and ask what each has done over the previous week to make the focus student happier at school. There is no need to refer back to their original suggestions, as it does not matter if they employed those particular strategies, only that they did something to make the situation improve for the victim. Congratulate them personally and as a group for a job well done and ask if they would like to continue for another week. Conduct one more review and, if no further problems surface, cease the intervention. Comment Young (2001) reports that the advantages of this method are that the bullies are not punished, which prevents their retaliating against the victim for disclosing the abuse, and ensures that no injustice occurs in instances where the victim is also provocative or a bully at other times. Most parties are relieved not to have to discuss the actual bullying behaviour but focus instead on finding a solution. Once that is achieved, the details of who did what to whom become irrelevant anyway. Source: Young (2001)


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM


145

effects of abuse can be offset by positive interactions with others (Martin & Huebner 2007). For the same reason, you could recommend that their parents engage them in extracurricular activities where they might locate a supportive friendship. In the longer term, some entrenched victims can benefit from counselling, as those who are emotionally sensitive are at some elevated risk of being targeted for repeated victimisation (Sweeting et al. 2007). You could recommend to their parents that they consult a counsellor, while school-based support groups (e.g. for sexual minorities) can also be beneficial (Goodenow, Szalacha & Westheimer 2006). If the abuse has been undetected and therefore has been occurring for some time, victims may also need educational interventions to reverse the academic disengagement and declining performance that has resulted from their prolonged isolation (Schwartz et al. 2005).

Collaborating with parents of perpetrators Parents of aggressors need to be told about their child’s behaviour, without their child being condemned and without themselves being criticised. To avoid angry parents punishing their child at home, it will be crucial to communicate that this is a school-based problem, which the school intends to solve. In those rare cases where you suspect that an aggressive child could receive harsh punishment at home for something that happened at school, the child’s need for safety might over-ride your obligation to inform parents. In that event you might decide not to tell them of an isolated incident, although you will need to inform them in the case of ongoing bullying.

Education about bullying Along with the student group and school staff, parents need to receive some straight-forward information about the various forms of bullying, its signs and long-term effects on victims. At the same time, misinformation needs to be countered, such as myths that bullying is an inescapable part of life, that it toughens people up, that some students ‘ask’ for it, or that words cannot harm us (O’Moore & Minton 2004).

Connect parents to the community In 25 years of psychology practice, I have never yet met a well child from a well-resourced, well-functioning family who was displaying repeated aggression. In my experience, troubled and isolated children have troubled and isolated families. Their child’s aggressive behaviour often exacerbates parents’ isolation, with not only the child being shunned by peers but


15/1/08 11:47:42 AM

146


the parents also being excluded from interaction with and support from other parents. Therefore, you will need to take active steps to include the parents of aggressors within the wider parent group. You could also encourage parents to provide opportunities for their child to socialise with peers outside of school hours. Cementing friendships with school peers will buffer aggressors against stress, make aggression less likely because children are less hostile towards others whom they know well (Hartup & Moore 1990), and may provide an occasion for the two sets of parents to meet and form a supportive relationship with each other.

Teach parents egalitarian discipline Young people’s use of relational aggression is common when their parents use psychological controls such as withdrawal of love or the induction of guilt or shame – that is, when parents themselves model relationally manipulative behaviours (Brendgen et al. 2005; Casas et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2006) or fail to check older siblings’ relational aggression towards their younger brothers or sisters, who learn and subsequently transfer it into their peer relationships (Ostrov, Crick & Stauffacher 2006; Stauffacher & DeHart 2006). Therefore, where possible, offer parents seminars or give them written information about egalitarian disciplinary practices (see Porter 2006).

Respond non-punitively to perpetrators The tendencies to aggression and bullying remain fairly constant (Olweus 1993), with half of childhood bullies persisting with this behaviour into adolescence (Scholte et al. 2007). This implies the need to intervene before the pattern becomes entrenched, as the behaviour is not just a phase or rite of passage and, for significant numbers of perpetrators, will not abate if ignored (Young et al. 2006). Much as we repudiate aggression and bullying, however, adult disapproval and coercive attempts to control it do not work. Aggressive students are likely to resist and even be contemptuous of adult-imposed, authoritarian interventions (Rodkin & Hodges 2003). Aggressors tend to perceive interventions that target them as unfair and take revenge against a victim who occasioned it by reporting them. Furthermore, authoritarian interventions will not only be ineffective but also hypocritical, as they would simply replicate and reinforce dominance over the vulnerable. Moreover, even when aggressors fit the ‘troubled’ pattern described earlier, their antisocial behaviours are nevertheless intended to meet their needs for autonomy and connectedness with others (Ungar 2004). A solution-


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


147

focused approach, then, would enlarge on the pro-social ways they can meet these needs without harming others. Although the parents of victims commonly want you to punish perpetrators, you can assure them that research shows that this only exacerbates their aggression. Although perpetrators are responsible for their actions and for the effects of these on victims, the aim is to solve the problem rather than punish the perpetrators. Parents of victims might be mollified by the statement that punishment seeks retribution for past misdeeds, whereas your focus is to prevent future transgressions. Nonpunitive responses have the best chance of achieving this. Perpetrators do not lack social competence and therefore it would be ineffective to coach them in social skills (Hirschstein et al. 2007). This is why training in cooperation, anger management and conflict-resolution skills has achieved only modest effects in reducing aggression and bullying (Leff et al. 2001; Samples 2004; Smith et al. 2004). By adolescence, relational bullies have high social status (Merrell et al. 2006) and therefore have little investment in changing their behaviour. Their bullying persists because it works.

Build a close relationship with aggressive students Children’s aggression typically alienates their parents, educators and peers (Blankemeyer, Flannery & Vazsonyi 2002). This disconnectedness from others will only exacerbate their antisocial behaviour. To counteract this isolation, you will need to build a warm relationship with them.

No-blame responses At younger ages (below nine years), and for individual rather than gang bullying, simply telling the bully to stop can be effective (Smith, Cowie & Sharp 1994). For students aged over nine, various approaches have been reported for dealing with perpetrators. These include Pikas’s (2002) method of shared concern employed for gang bullying, Maines and Robinson’s no-blame approach (McGrath & Stanley 2006), restorative responses (Armstrong & Thorsborne 2006) and counselling of victims and their parents (Fuller 2006). The steps involved in these methods differ slightly but, in essence, they aim to repair relationships by listening to victims and dispassionately conveying their feelings to perpetrators and any colluders, either individually or as a group. This explains that victims are in a bad situation, without accusing perpetrators or asking them to admit guilt. Pikas (2002) also aims to support collaborators so that they do not need to fear retribution or to worry that they will become the next victim. Thus empowered, and with their empathy aroused, you invite perpetrators to suggest ways they could help improve the victim’s


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

148


circumstances and ask for a commitment to these measures. In followup meetings you would check that these are working. Perhaps even less confronting to perpetrators is the solution-focused approach described in chapter 4 and outlined in Box 8.3 (page 143).

Teach reactively aggressive students to manage their emotions As already mentioned, reactive aggression arises from coercive discipline, which fails to teach children regulation of their emotions. Therefore, in the immediate aftermath of an outburst, reactively aggressive students will need permission to withdraw to a quiet area where they can calm down. (This ‘time away’ procedure was described in chapter 7.) In the longer term, students who display reactive aggression may need cognitive training to learn emotional self-control – that is, to manage their own emotional reactions – so they can engage with peers pro-socially, without disrupting others or becoming aggressive and thus inciting peer rejection. As reactively aggressive children are more likely to interpret their peers’ accidental behaviours as intentionally hostile and therefore to respond aggressively, some will need coaching to make more accurate interpretations of others’ intent (Asher 1983; Katsurada & Sugawara 1998).

Question the goals of proactive aggressors Proactive aggressors have adequate emotional self-control, but fail to discipline their impulses. With these students, the hurdle you must overcome is that they value aggression because it secures them status. In light of the fact reported earlier that this dominance comes at the cost of peer acceptance, you can ask these young people about their goal: ‘Do you want to have friends, or do you want to be boss?’ If they say that they want friends, you can ask whether they think that their present coercive behaviour makes it easier or harder to make friends. To help them answer this, you might invite them to reflect on their peers’ verbal and nonverbal feedback to them. If instead they tell you that they want to be boss, you can ask whether they think that bossing other people makes them a better person. If so, you can feign puzzlement when you enquire (with the exact wording adjusted in accord with students’ ages): • • •

Where did you get that idea? What makes you think that you’re not already a good person, whether you are the boss or not? How many people do you have to boss around before you will have enough proof that you are okay: this peer, the whole class, the whole school, the whole city, everyone in the country…or all the world? How likely is that?


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


149

While insisting (through the imposed time away described in chapter 7) that these students control their impulse to boss others around, it can also be useful to give them pro-social opportunities to lead and exercise autonomy, so they are less invested in exerting control antisocially.

Assess aggressive students’ development As many as two-thirds of reactively aggressive students have learning impairments; cognitive processing problems such as attention and concentration difficulties, impulsivity and problem-solving deficits; and language difficulties, including auditory working-memory impairments (Dionne et al. 2003; Ripley & Yuill 2005; Schaeffer et al. 2003; Vitaro et al. 2002). Any of these can result in both poor school achievement and a limited repertoire for solving social dilemmas. To identify any learning difficulties, conduct your own assessments and, if these confirm your misgivings, recommend to parents that they seek assessments from a psychologist and speech pathologist.

Be alert for signs of child abuse High levels of aggression are a common result of child abuse (Bolger & Patterson 2001). Therefore, reflect on whether aggressive students are displaying other signs of abuse (as listed in Box 10.2 on pages 177–179) and, where indicated, report your concerns to the relevant child welfare authorities.

Suspend recalcitrant aggressors While victims and their parents have some legal remedies – such as provided by anti-stalking legislation or apprehended violence orders (Nicholson 2006) – once they have had to resort to the criminal courts to protect themselves, it is already too late to prevent harm to victims. Given the serious effects that can arise from severe bullying (as listed in Box 8.1 on page 135), the physical and psychological health of victims must take precedence over perpetrators’ rights. Therefore, in those rare cases where perpetrators have had every chance to cease their harassment but have been unwilling to do so, they will need to be suspended from school. When you suspend perpetrators, justice demands that you recommend alternative placements and, in the meantime, provide a home-based curriculum. While some authors repudiate excluding students on the grounds that it contradicts inclusive practice (Strain & Joseph 2004), suspension can be a positive force that impels the parents of perpetrators to instigate problem solving. It is also preferable to forcing victims to change schools, which seems unfair given that they are not at fault and therefore should not be the ones to have their education disrupted.


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

150


Solution-focused interventions with parents Solution-focused interventions with parents of perpetrators can be useful, particularly if they attempt to ‘gang up’ with parents of other perpetrators to ostracise the victim or the victim’s parents (Field & Carroll 2006); if parents of bully-victims overlook their child’s culpability in the bullying and claim victim status only; or if parents of victims either feel powerless to help their child or intend to confront the bullies or their parents themselves, thus potentially inflaming the situation. The strength of the solution-focused approach is that it does not apportion blame or require both sets of parents to agree on the facts about incidents, but merely to acknowledge that victims are having a difficult time.

Recommend social services for stressed families Chronic aggression in children can be a sign of stress in a family. Moreover, children’s aggression is likely to be most severe at home (Little et al. 2003), thereby adding to parents’ stress. As a teacher, your role may not be to support families directly, but it can be possible to recommend agencies to assist them in improving their living circumstances, so that their stress levels are lowered and they can parent more responsively.

Garner support for yourself When responding to bullying, you may need support from your principal, other colleagues, a school counsellor, outside health professionals or, for criminal behaviour, the police. Although engaging the police may seem harsh, it is misguided to protect perpetrators of criminal assaults from answering to law enforcement, as being forced to acknowledge their deeds in young life may deflect them from a path of persistent delinquent and criminal behaviour in late adolescence and adulthood.

Conclusion The most successful way to prevent bullying and other forms of aggression is to be supremely effective at responding to incidents and thus avoiding a repetition (Pikas 2002). Parents want to see action. To that end, teachers must demonstrate their commitment by following up on incidents so that direct victims are protected and the school as a whole develops a climate of tolerance (Hirschstein et al. 2007). When successful, the need for collaborative problem solving with parents will abate. All those involved will know that interventions have been successful when victims begin to function better academically, emotionally and socially.


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


151

Additional resources McGrath, H. & Noble, T. (Eds.) (2006). Bullying solutions: Evidencebased approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman. O’Moore, M. & Minton, S.J. (2004). Dealing with bullying in schools: A training manual for teachers, parents and other professionals. London: Paul Chapman. Rigby, K. (2003). Stop the bullying: A handbook for schools. (2nd ed.) Melbourne: ACER Press. Rigby, K. (2007). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. (Rev. ed.) Melbourne: ACER Press. Slee, P.T. (2001). The PEACE pack: A program for reducing bullying in our schools. (3rd ed.) Adelaide, SA: Flinders University.

For early childhood teachers Sprung, B., Froschl, M. & Hinitz, B. (2005). The anti-bullying and teasing book for preschool classrooms. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.

Websites Bullying in schools and what to do about it: http://www.education.unisa. edu.au/bullying Child and Adolescent Psychological and Educational Resources (CAPER): http://www.caper.com.au National Coalition Against Bullying: htpp://www.ncab.org.au


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

9

Supporting families who are experiencing adversity

Adversity operates on children’s psychological development by compromising parenting and fostering family distress… [Nevertheless] improving parent–child relationships may bring about positive changes in children’s behaviour even if the family continues to experience significant… strain. O’Connor (2002, p. 562)

Stimulating home environments and responsive parenting help children to regulate their emotions and learning processes which, in turn, help them make a successful transition to school (Downer & Pianta 2006). This leads to improved achievement in subsequent years. However, not all families are advantaged and able to prepare their children for learning. Those families enduring economic hardship may still value and be interested in their children’s education but lack the material resources to provide adequate intellectual stimulation and give children the skills and confidence to succeed at school (Diener et al. 2003; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 2000; Foster et al. 2005; Luster et al. 2004; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005; Raviv, Kessenich & Morrison 2004). The result is that disadvantaged students typically achieve below their more advantaged peers from the earliest years of schooling, with these discrepancies being maintained and even widening throughout the school years (Evans, Maxwell & Hart 1999; Raviv et al. 2004; Votruba-Drzal 2006). Nevertheless, not all of this effect is due to family disadvantage. Schools in impoverished neighbourhoods typically have fewer resources and teachers who hold lower expectations for student achievement (Hauser-Cram et al. 2003). Students’ perception of the personal support they receive in school for academic achievement is powerful in motivating them to put in continued effort to learn (Marchant et al. 2001). Compared with their relationships with peers and their parents, students’ relationships with their teachers are the strongest influence on their engagement and

152


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


153

interest in learning (Goodenow 1993; Osterman 2000; Ryan, Stiller & Lynch 1994; Tucker et al. 2002; Wentzel 1998). Thus, students’ academic outcomes are more influenced by the quality of their school than by their family backgrounds (Mortimore et al. 1988; Rutter & Maughan 2002). Although disadvantaging home factors create the potential for negative academic outcomes, this risk will not eventuate when schools offer appropriate supports in the form of teacher involvement, effective teaching, high academic expectations and non-coercive discipline (McEvoy & Welker 2000; Reinke & Herman 2002; Rutter 1983).

Effects of family adversity The wellbeing of children is inextricably linked to the wellbeing of their families. In stressful circumstances, parents are less available to nurture their children and are more likely to use unresponsive and coercive discipline. A considerable body of robust research is unanimous in demonstrating that this style of parenting has detrimental effects for children’s academic, emotional, social and behavioural adjustment (Diener et al. 2003; Gershoff et al. 2007; Lempers, Clark-Lempers & Simons 1989; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005; Nix et al. 1999; O’Leary et al. 1999; Parke et al. 2004; Petterson & Albers 2001; Qi & Kaisser 2003; Raviv et al. 2004; Steelman et al. 2002). Children with high levels of negative emotionality and low attention skills will be the most reactive to family adversity and, correspondingly, will be more likely to develop behavioural problems (Milan, Pinderhughes & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2006).

Chaotic households Family chaos affects children’s functioning. Chaos refers to environments that are noisy, crowded and low in routines and organisation (Coldwell et al. 2006). Such settings create high stress levels for adults and children alike, making it difficult for parents to be responsive to their children. This results in less communication between parents and children, thus affecting children’s cognitive and language skills (Evans et al. 1999), while less responsive parenting exacerbates children’s behavioural difficulties (Coldwell et al. 2006). Crowded housing also increases children’s exposure to any parental conflict that may be occurring (Parke et al. 2004).

Stressed neighbourhoods Neighbourhoods can be described in three ways: their status, which includes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (e.g. age mix


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

154


and ethnicity) of their residents; the resources that dictate their capacity to meet residents’ needs; and their processes, such as social supports provided to residents and having a sense of collective efficacy (Boyle et al. 2007). Families sort themselves into neighbourhoods based on affordability and similarities between themselves and current residents (Boyle et al. 2007). Once living there, family members are exposed in the long term to the influence of their setting because, even if they moved house, parents tend to choose a similar location (Boyle et al. 2007). As children near middle childhood, they become increasingly exposed to their neighbourhood. High proportions of neighbours who did not attain educational or economic success pose a risk to adolescents’ school performance (Haveman & Wolfe 1995; Shumow et al. 1999). From an early age, neighbourhood disadvantage also doubles the risk of antisocial behaviour in children and youth (Ingoldsby et al. 2006). Nevertheless, parents can insulate their sons and daughters from poor academic outcomes by taking an interest in their educational success (Shumow et al. 1999) and monitoring their friendships (Kim, Hetherington & Reiss 1999; Pettit et al. 2001; Schaffer 1998; Smith & Farrington 2004), without which their affiliations with delinquent peers can increase the likelihood of criminal behaviour (Fergusson, SwainCampbell & Horwood 2004). Neighbourhoods can also be valuable assets to residents, with children of immigrants performing better in school and having fewer behavioural problems when they live in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of immigrant families (Boyle et al. 2007).

Poverty Children are the most likely of any social group to be experiencing poverty (with the elderly being the next most probable). In Australia, approximately 20 per cent of children live in poverty, with this figure being considerably higher among Aboriginal children (Gilding 1997); the rate for the United Kingdom is 26 per cent, double that of a generation ago (Hill & Jenkins 2001), while the rate for the United States falls between 20 and 30 per cent, with 8 per cent living in extreme poverty (Aber & Ellwood 2001; Prince & Howard 2002). Even when family income is at double the poverty level, many families still experience economic hardship, which means that they lack sufficient income to cover living expenses, health and educational costs (Gershoff et al. 2007). Poverty, of course, is not entirely random. Parents who have little education and physical or emotional health difficulties generally are on low incomes. Some of their low attainment may have a genetic basis that will also impair their children’s functioning. However, a significant


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


155

proportion of negative educational outcomes for disadvantaged children is due to environmental influences, as evidenced by the fact that the rate of mild intellectual disability is eight times higher in the United States than in Sweden, which Sameroff (1990) attributes to the superior levels of support available in Sweden to impoverished families. Particularly when it is prolonged, poverty has a toxic effect on children across all domains, as listed in Box 9.1. Young children are particularly vulnerable to the detrimental effects of inadequate nutrition and stimulation (Bradbury, Jenkins & Micklewright 2001), which continue to exert developmentally disabling effects to at least nine years of age (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005). The source of parents’ income is also important. Compared with non-poor families, children whose parents rely solely on welfare are at a 228 per cent increased risk of academic failure during primary school, compared with a 59 per cent elevated risk for children whose parents are on equally low incomes but who are employed (De Civita et al. 2004).

Box 9.1 Effects of poverty on children •

•

•

Substandard accommodation. Impoverished families are more likely to experience substandard and crowded housing, repeated changes of residence, and limited social supports within a stressed or dangerous neighbourhood. Health. Children living in poverty are vulnerable to poor nutrition and elevated levels of stress hormones, both of which compromise their immune system. Consequently, they are more likely to experience fatigue, headaches, concentration difficulties and a range of illnesses. Restricted access to health care exacerbates these problems. Development. A lack of stimulation and poor health causes children growing up in poverty to display impaired cognitive and language skills by school entry. This has been measured as a loss of nine IQ points for children enduring persistent poverty and four points for those in transient hardship (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 2000). These delays are enduring and difficult to alter subsequently. Harsh parenting that can arise from the stress of economic hardship lowers children’s language comprehension skills, compared with children whose parents use reasoning and negotiation in their discipline. Language impairments are found in 26 per cent of girls and 35 per cent of boys living in poverty. Low-quality child care and under-resourced preschools and schools do not redress this inequity. Children’s motor skills, however, are not affected.

➡


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

156


•

•

•

•

Recreation. Impoverished children and families have restricted assess to leisure activities, for which costly sporting equipment will be unaffordable. In the resulting absence of recreational choice, they may become involved in antisocial behaviour. Strained family relationships. Financial strain is a direct source of stress for all family members, initiating conflict between them and leading to insensitive, unresponsive and harsh parenting, higher rates of parental conflict and, commonly, a series of parental separations. Emotional wellbeing. Current (as opposed to previous) economic stress, family conflict and harsh parenting produce a deterioration in children’s emotional adjustment. Impoverished children and adolescents learn maladaptive coping strategies and fail to acquire emotional regulation skills, raising their propensity to anxiety and depression. Antisocial behaviour. Children’s behaviour is especially susceptible to environmental influences. Harsh parenting fails to teach children socially competent problem solving, which exacerbates their aggression. The result is that between 20 and 30 per cent of disadvantaged children aged under five years display behavioural difficulties such as aggression, which is around five times the rate of the general population (Kaiser et al. 2000; Qi & Kaiser 2003). By the age of ten, 9.4 per cent continue to evidence severe behavioural problems, which is just under three times higher than usual (Thompson et al. 2003). In adulthood, they display six times the rate of criminal behaviour (Fergusson et al. 2004). Sources: Ackerman et al. 2002; Ackerman, Brown & Izard 2004; Aguilar et al. 2000; Belsky et al. 1998; Campbell 1995; Campbell & Ewing 1990; Campbell et al. 1991a, 1991b, 2000; Coldwell et al. 2006; Coolahan et al. 2002; Côté et al. 2006; Dearing et al. 2006b; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 2000; Evans & English 2002; Evans et al. 1999; Fergusson et al. 2004, 2005; Fujiura & Yamaki 2000; Gest et al. 2004; Hill et al. 2006; Kaiser et al. 2000; Macmillan et al. 2004; McGroder 2000; Meyers 1999; Miller-Lewis et al. 2006; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005; O’Leary et al. 1999; Papero 2005; Park, Turnbull & Turnbull 2002; Petterson & Albers 2001; Qi & Kaiser 2003; Raviv et al. 2004; Romano et al. 2005; Rubin et al. 2003; Schaffer 1998; Shaw, Winslow & Flanagan 1999; Shaw et al. 2003; Smith & Farrington 2004; Spence et al. 2002; Sturge-Apple, Davies & Cummings 2006; Thompson et al. 2003; Tremblay 2004; Votruba-Drzal 2006.

Economic pressure exerts the many effects listed in Box 9.1 when it generates stress or depression in parents that, in turn, produces


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


157

unresponsive parenting. This is not inevitable, however. When researchers compare groups across the full range of socioeconomic status, children’s academic achievement reflects their families’ financial resources but, when examining individuals, the family’s economic circumstances can have very little influence on children’s outcomes. This is because many parents experiencing material hardship can and do compensate for their stress by nurturing their children and investing in them emotionally (Gershoff et al. 2007). Independent of family income levels, parents who have high self-efficacy are able to manage family crises, support their children’s learning, use responsive parenting skills and, thereby, avoid many of the deleterious effects that social disadvantage otherwise exerts on children and their education (Flouri 2006; Robinson et al. 2002; Romano et al. 2005; Sirin 2005; White 1982). In other words, it is not family status but family processes that predict family functioning and, in turn, children’s adjustment and achievement at school (Barnes et al. 2005; Raffaele & Knoff 1999).

Parents with disabilities In 1998, 18 per cent of all children aged under 17 years lived with a parent who had a disability (ABS 2006). This term encompasses parents with restrictions in self-care, mobility, communication or employment. In 91 per cent of cases, the parents’ disability is physical, with 11 per cent experiencing emotional or mental disorders; one third of these disabilities are rated as severe or profound (ABS 2006). Because disability tends to increase with parental age, most of the children in such families are of school age, placing demands on young people to provide direct care and emotional support for their parents at the same time as pursuing their education. Moreover, these families are at greater risk of poverty, which itself affects students’ educational outcomes, as already mentioned. Children whose parents have intellectual disabilities are three times more likely than usual to be living in chronic poverty and lacking in social support (Feldman 1994; Fujiura & Yamaki 2000; Llewellyn 1990, 1994). During their own adolescence, these parents are less likely to have been entrusted with the supervision of children, which means that many will lack experience with, and knowledge of, children and their development (Schilling et al. 1982). Their lack of experience can be compounded by their concrete thinking and limited decision-making and communication skills, which can result in impulsive or inflexible responses to their children’s behaviours (Llewellyn 1990; Llewellyn & Brigden 1995; Schilling et al. 1982). As a result, the children are at risk of neglect and of receiving insufficient stimulation, which results in


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

158


impaired overall development, especially in language skills (Llewellyn 1990; Schilling et al. 1982; Tymchuk 1992). Nevertheless, the majority of parents with mild intellectual disabilities are able to parent at least as adequately as other impoverished parents (Llewellyn 1990; Tymchuk 1992), especially when there are two parents and few children in the family, when they can be provided with concrete information about child development and household management, and when they have assistance to navigate the sometimes complex application processes required to access social services (Llewellyn 1995; Llewellyn & Brigden 1995; McConnell, Llewellyn & Bye 1997).

Parents with mental illness Depression is the ‘common cold’ of mental illness. Beyond the post-natal depression that briefly affects 20 to 80 per cent of new mothers (SohrPreston & Scaramella 2006), prolonged and severe depression (in either parent) disrupts responsive parenting (Chronis et al. 2007; Field et al. 2003; McGroder 2000; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999; Nelson et al. 2007; Papero 2005; Sohr-Preston & Scaramella 2006). This has differing effects at various ages, with depressed parents interacting less with their infants. As a result, the babies lose interest in communicating (Weinberg et al. 2006) and, although more anxious, their mothers do not soothe them and thereby help them to regulate their feelings which, in turn, affects their emotional and behavioural adjustment throughout life (Chronis et al. 2007; Gartstein & Fagot 2003; Lundy et al. 1999; Marchand, Schedler & Wagstaff 2004; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999; Spence et al. 2002). Up to one third of children with parents experiencing prolonged and severe depression manifest behavioural disturbances, compared with 5 per cent of children in the general population (Brennan et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the reverse of these statistics is that around three quarters of these young people achieve normal emotional and behavioural wellbeing (Spence et al. 2002). When mothers with emotional difficulties can interact positively with their children despite their own emotional state, their children adjust similarly to those whose mothers are not depressed (Field et al. 2003; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999). At older ages, a lack of stimulation leads to intellectual delays in children of severely depressed parents (although parents’ education levels seem to have more effect than does their depression itself) (Sohr-Preston & Scaramella 2006). As well as the developmental implications, the noncontingent interaction between parent and child fosters low self-efficacy in children (Jennings & Abrew 2004). Meanwhile, children with impaired ability to regulate their emotions and behaviours experience more coercive


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


159

discipline at home and at school, which exacerbates their behavioural challenges (Coyl, Roggman & Newland 2002; Gartstein & Fagot 2003; McGroder 2000). With depression and all other emotional disturbances (or mental illnesses), parents may not have the motivation or energy to offer their children emotional or educational support at home, or direct support at school (Kohl et al. 2000). Their engagement with their children and their teachers can fluctuate according to the status of their illness and their compliance with any medication or other health regime.

Parental drug use Without doubt, the two most dangerous drugs for women to consume during pregnancy are nicotine and alcohol. Exposure to these and to illicit drugs in utero results in decreased blood and oxygen reaching the fetus, causing stunted growth and increased risk of miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth and sudden infant death (Bendersky & Lewis 1999; Davidson & Myers 2007; Friend, Goodwin & Lipsitt 2004; Howard et al. 2001). Smoking during pregnancy has also been linked to problems of behavioural regulation, including high levels of aggression (Huijbregts et al. 2007). Early prenatal exposure to high levels of alcohol (as found in binge drinking) produces impairments in young children’s intellectual and language skills, with learning, behavioural and social problems emerging by school age (Davidson & Myers 2007). In large enough doses, fetal exposure to alcohol, particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy, can produce fetal alcohol syndrome (see Box 9.2, page 160). Some effects of maternal drug use are the direct result of impaired fetal brain development. Other developmental effects are less direct, but nevertheless significant. The main risk factor is that parents’ dependent alcohol or other drug use is typically associated with chaotic home circumstances, which themselves pose hazards for children’s development (Bennett, Bendersky & Lewis 2002; Brown et al. 2004; Moe & Smith 2003). These circumstances include poverty, inadequate prenatal and postnatal care and nutrition, a lack of supervision and stimulation of the baby, multiple drug use by parents and diminished social supports for the family. This means that children can suffer emotional and social effects even when not exposed to drugs prenatally, and when their father but not their mother is dependent on alcohol or other drugs (Bailey et al. 2006; Hussong et al. 2005). Children of parents dependent on alcohol or other drugs can display unremitting levels of aggression and disruptive behaviour at school. As discussed in chapter 8, whereas children’s aggression typically peaks at


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

160


around 30 months and declines thereafter, those with one or both parents dependent on alcohol show no such decline (Edwards et al. 2006). Socially, young children of active (as opposed to abstinent) alcoholics also display social skill impairments. Some of their social delays may be due to dependent parents’ negative engagement with their baby (Luthar & Sexton 2007; Tronick et al. 2005). These social skill deficits in children improve once their parents cease drinking (Hussong et al. 2005), but those whose parents maintain high intakes show increasing adjustment problems over time (Andreas & O’Farrell 2007).

Box 9.2 Fetal alcohol syndrome Signs of fetal alcohol syndrome include: • delayed speech, language and motor skills • behavioural difficulties • below-average height (but normal weight) • abnormal facial features: small head; short, upturned nose; thin upper lips; flattened philtrum (the vertical crease on the top lip beneath the nose); wide-set eyes; flat midface; and epicanthic folds over the eyes • malformations of the outer and middle ear • cardiac, vision and hearing problems (Batshaw & Conlon 1997). Lower maternal alcohol intake produces lesser effects on development and physical appearance, when the children’s difficulties are usually referred to as ‘fetal alcohol effects’ (FAE). Combined, fetal alcohol syndrome and FAE account for around 1 per 100 births (Davidson & Myers 2007).

Aside from the legal drugs, illicit drug exposure has variable effects on the fetus. Subtle effects of cocaine exposure on infants’ visual memory and perceptual skills are detectable from infancy, while selective attention, concentration, memory and regulation of emotion (e.g. when frustrated) seem most affected (Brown et al. 2004; Dennis et al. 2006; Moe & Smith 2003; Singer et al. 2005). These difficulties can be disruptive but may not produce a functional impairment until the school years, when children are expected to be able to control their emotions and attention processes (Bennett et al. 2002).

Parental conflict Intense and unresolved conflict between parents causes them to withdraw, thus becoming unavailable and less nurturing in their parenting. In turn,


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


161

this leads to a deterioration in the children’s emotional, behavioural and academic adjustment (Ackerman et al. 2002; Dearing et al. 2006b; Katz & Woodin 2002; Kitzmann 2000; Sturge-Apple et al. 2006). In reverse, a warm relationship with parents helps children to cope with parental conflict (Peterson & Zill 1986). Over and above the effects in children from sharing their parents’ angry temperaments (Cleveland et al. 2000), witnessing their parents’ hostility towards each other leads to anger and oppositional behaviour in children, particularly when the parents’ arguments are about them (Jenkins et al. 2005, 2006). Children who are most vulnerable to emotional maladjustment and health problems are those who feel to blame for their parents’ disputes or feel responsible for solving these, who are emotionally reactive or less flexible in adapting, and who feel emotionally insecure as a result of their parents’ conflict; while children most likely to develop behavioural problems are those who feel threatened by their parents’ conflict (Ackerman et al. 1999; Cummings, Goeke-Morey & Papp 2003; Cummings et al. 2006; El-Sheikh & Harger 2001; Jenkins et al. 2005; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow 1990; Zimet & Jacob 2001).

Spousal abuse In parental conflict, both partners may be reasonably equally engaged, whereas in spousal abuse, the relationship is less symmetrical, with one adult clearly dominant and the other subordinate. Spousal abuse (otherwise known as ‘intimate partner violence’) takes many forms and affects at least one in five families across all social classes, not being confined only to blatantly dysfunctioning families (Gilding 1997). Verbal abuse is the glue that holds all the other forms in place, and includes putting a spouse down or yelling, while physical abuse involves inflicting injury. More subtle forms include restricting spouses’ income or allocation for household expenses (economic abuse), restricting their social contacts (social abuse), and sexual abuse, which involves degrading sexual comments, demanding sex and punishing refusals, or causing physical injury during sex. As with other forms of family adversity, partner violence affects children’s adjustment by disrupting parenting (Maughan & Cicchetti 2002). Parents living with constant derision, fear and threat are likely to parent less responsively and will often become overly controlling and negative in their discipline (Cummings 1998). This style, in turn, exacerbates children’s emotional and behavioural difficulties. Partner abuse can also lead to the neglect of children during the actual violent episode, or while the injured parent receives treatment or nurses his or her emotional pain. Children’s reactions to witnessing their parent being attacked can be similar to those of being abused themselves (Bogat et al. 2006), with young


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM

162


adolescents actually more disturbed by their parent’s victimisation than by their own (Sternberg et al. 2006a). Many feel overwhelmed by the need to protect their siblings and to safeguard their family’s secret from outsiders (Mullender et al. 2002). On the other hand, young children may be even more severely affected (Bogat et al. 2006; Cummings 1998), perhaps because adolescents have a more mature understanding of their parents’ relationship, or have developed coping mechanisms (Sternberg et al. 2006b). When child abuse occurs together with partner violence, the children have even more extreme emotional and behavioural difficulties and are slower to recover from stressful events (Cummings 1998; Maughan & Cicchetti 2002; Sternberg et al. 2006a). Their trauma is exacerbated when partner violence occurs in the context of parental alcohol or other drug abuse. Many children also witness their violent parent injuring the family pet, as a result of which they are three times more likely to be cruel towards animals or display other forms of callousness (Currie 2006). If the abuse leads to marital separation, children can experience relief. On the whole, young people are better adjusted when they can maintain ongoing contact with a non-residential parent. An exception, however, is when the parental separation follows partner violence or child abuse that causes the children to detest or be fearful of the abusing parent. In that case, it is generally less dangerous physically and emotionally healthier for them to cease contact with a violent parent (Mullender et al. 2002). In terms of their behaviours at school, you might see one of two patterns in children from families in which spousal abuse occurs: first, outbursts of emotion, whereby young people cannot control their emotional displays (e.g. in response to peer provocation) or, alternatively, subdued behaviour (Buehler, Lange & Franck 2007). Some display acting out behaviour in an attempt to distract their parents from their own conflict (Buehler et al. 2007). Adolescents in violent families can have difficulty trusting peers and thus establishing and maintaining peer relationships, and can experience both low self-efficacy because they cannot control their parents’ behaviour and low self-esteem if they blame themselves for it (Buehler et al. 2007). Parental hostility and abuse teach children that the world is unsafe and that aggression is a viable means of handling conflict, while failing to teach more pro-social means for solving interpersonal disputes (Zimet & Jacob 2001). It is unsurprising, therefore, to see high rates of aggression and antisocial peer interaction in students who witness their parents’ violence.

Family bereavement Young people grieve for the same losses as do adults: lost contact with a friend; the death of a relative, friend or pet; moving house or losing the family


15/1/08 11:47:43 AM


163

home to a natural disaster such as fire; having a new sibling; hospitalisation; or the separation of their parents, to name a few (Wakenshaw 2002). The most serious of these losses, naturally, is the death of a parent. This is a developmental crisis that can cause children to fear that their surviving parent will abandon them also, not least because that parent will be absorbed in his or her own distress and therefore may be less emotionally available to the child during mourning (Wolchik et al. 2006). Just as a physical injury takes time to heal, emotional pain needs a recovery period, too. In the grieving process, adults experience an array of emotions over many months, spanning shock and numbness, depression and loneliness, panic about whether they are going crazy, anger at themselves, at the person they have lost, or at anyone who may have contributed to that loss, guilt for what they did or did not do that might have contributed to the loss, and, eventually, gradual hope because they can now remember the person they have lost without the searing pain that memory used to bring. They can begin to conceive once again of being happy, albeit not perfectly secure. Along the way they might have physical symptoms of their distress and can have unsettling emotional outbursts. Children can experience a similar assortment of emotions and for the same duration as do adults (typically, at least two years). However, this may be the first time they have experienced feeling so intensely and therefore may not know what is happening to them and how to cope. You can assist by giving them information about grief, opportunities to talk or write about their feelings, and permission to withdraw when overwhelmed with emotion. In the case of a death, you will need to discover what their parent has told them about its circumstances so that you provide consistent information. It is not unusual for young children to repeat the same question in an apparent search for information, when what they actually want is a different answer (Willis 2002). Most children will need you to ‘drip-feed’ them information (that is, give information in short bursts, repeated often), as young children, in particular, but people of any age who are under emotional duress cannot take in large amounts of information at once. Do not add to grieving children’s confusion by using euphemisms for death (such as ‘gone to sleep’) and limit your information to the physical facts of dying, as the mourning period is not the time to impart new spiritual understandings. Also, parents are the appropriate source of religious guidance. If parents ask your advice, recommend that they involve the child or adolescent in a ritual to honour the deceased person, either by attending the funeral or, afterwards, constructing a memorial in the form of a box of his or her treasured possessions or a tree planted in remembrance. Allow the student to bring to school a memento of the person he or she has lost.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

164


If changes in the student’s schooling or living arrangements are necessary after a bereavement, advise the parents that, where possible, they delay these so that the first loss is not compounded for the student by the additional loss of all that is familiar in the form of friends, peer group, teachers and routines. The aim for both parents and teachers is, where possible, to shield students from extraneous stressors, so that they are free to resolve their grief (Wolchik et al. 2006).

Promoting resilience in disadvantaged students Stress in children is manifested as emotional or behavioural underregulation, signs of which are listed in Box 9.3. Even when students are displaying these signs of stress, however, you must not assume that these are caused by their family circumstances. You would not blame children’s disruptive behaviour at home on your program; similarly, you cannot

Box 9.3 Signs of stress in children Children living with adversity have difficulty regulating their emotions. Unlike typical children, they continue to display elevated rates of behavioural difficulties at school entry, while their emotional difficulties such as depression and anxiety increase through childhood. Specific manifestations of this include: • reactive or proactive aggression • antisocial behaviour, e.g. damage to property • negative peer interaction • social withdrawal • sadness or depression • hypervigilance: scanning the setting to detect potential threats • distress • anger • anxiety and fearfulness • increased health problems • disturbed sleeping patterns, which result in fatigue, inattention, hyperactivity or poor performance at school • becoming overly compliant • slow recovery from stressful events. Sources: Cummings 1998; Cummings et al. 2003, 2006; El-Sheikh & Harger 2001; El-Sheikh et al. 2006; Katz & Woodin 2002; Maughan & Cicchetti 2002; Peterson & Zill 1986; Shaw et al. 1999; Sternberg et al. 2006a, 2006b.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


165

assume that a student’s behaviour at school is due to events in the family. It is more likely that behavioural outbursts are instigated by events in the immediate environment. Students may employ antisocial responses to provocation or stress because they have learned little else at home, but the actual trigger is within your setting. One way to minimise outbursts will be to make efforts to ensure that your curriculum does not impose additional stressors on students whose ability to cope is already compromised by family adversity. Although in many cases you will not be able to eliminate students’ stress, in light of the fact that they are encountering more than the usual difficulties, you can provide more than the usual level of support. This can be enough, in that positive experiences out of home can compensate for, or directly counter, risks posed in other parts of children’s lives, insulating them from the detrimental outcomes of adversity that are often thought inevitable (Rutter 1999).

Build supportive relationships with stressed students When, for whatever reasons, children lack positive supports within their families, support from outsiders is particularly potent in inoculating them against maladjustment (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker 2000). High-quality intellectual stimulation, responsive relationships with their teachers, and an accepting peer culture will help troubled students to be resilient (Criss et al. 2002). With respect to peer relationships, not only can you support students’ friendships at school, but you might also be able to recommend the same extracurricular activity to parents whose children have an affinity with each other, so that they can have contact outside of school hours to cement their relationship.

Foster students’ self-efficacy In addition to social support, children’s personal qualities such as resourcefulness, self-efficacy, flexibility and social skilfulness allow those who experience traumatic or stressful life events nevertheless to function positively (Luthar et al. 2000). Low self-efficacy is transmitted across generations – not genetically, but when mothers respond inconsistently to their infants’ communications of distress, they teach their children that they cannot secure comfort, and the children stop asking for adult help (Seligman 1975). This can be seen as early as infancy, when infants do not ask for what they need, do not persist at tasks and fail to show pleasure in their accomplishments (Jennings & Abrew 2004). Children with low self-efficacy are also less likely to use adaptive coping responses because their early exposure to unmanageable stressors fails to teach them


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

166


emotional regulation skills. In turn, their emotional reactivity generates social difficulties for them (Evans & English 2002). To promote their self-efficacy, you can assist students to solve challenges in ways that enhance their self-confidence, promote mastery and encourage them to take appropriate responsibility for themselves (Rutter 1985). Coping does not mean feeling no symptoms when experiencing stressful conditions: it means using strategies to minimise the impact of the stressor on your life. This can entail any of three responses: • •

•

problem-focused action involves solving the problem that is provoking stress – for example, using negotiation to resolve a peer conflict emotion-focused strategies help students to regulate their emotional reactions, by changing their thinking, passively accepting an uncontrollable stressor, or avoiding ruminating about it behavioural disengagement entails avoiding a stressor, e.g. by walking away from a tense encounter (Compas 1987; Halpern 2004).

The most adaptive strategy depends on the nature of the stressor. In general, problem-focused strategies are effective when individuals can exert some control over a stressor, whereas emotional or behavioural adjustments are more suited to issues that they cannot change (Spirito et al. 1991). Disengagement can be useful in response to acute, uncontrollable stressors, but less adaptive for continuing or chronic stress (Halpern 2004). The least effective strategies are emotional venting, engaging in wishful thinking, worrying, blaming themselves, or attempting to ignore a problem (Halpern 2004; Hunter & Boyle 2004; Lewis & Frydenberg 2002).

Behavioural guidance Children who are displaying troublesome behaviour almost appear to invite further rejection from all those around them. Do not allow their behaviour to alienate you, however, as that will compound their difficulties. Children living in adverse circumstances are more likely to be experiencing controlling forms of discipline, which only entrenches their behavioural difficulties. They need to experience a positive alternative. Although the topic of behavioural management is beyond the scope of this chapter, the use of time away (as described in chapter 7) is fundamental, with other strategies outlined in Porter (2008).

Support for parents The above review is clear in its conclusion that family adversity reduces child adjustment only when it affects the quality of parenting that children


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


167

receive. In your capacity as their child’s teacher, you can do much to support stressed parents and thereby enhance their responsiveness to their children, which, in turn, will promote the children’s adaptive functioning at school. Yet, typically, parents in disadvantaging circumstances report that in schools they experience a judgemental attitude towards themselves and an increasingly negative focus during teacher–parent interactions, particularly over children’s behavioural difficulties (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta 1999). Parents from devalued cultures (many of whom also suffer economic disadvantage) report their interactions with their children’s teachers to be least supportive (Hughes & Kwok 2007). Some of this is due to judgemental attitudes within schools towards disadvantaged families. Our expectations of these students and their parents can be based on limited understanding of the reality of their lives (Swick 2003). Many parents in adverse circumstances can be struggling just to survive, and may have little time or energy to engage in schoolbased problems. On the other hand, some interpersonal difficulties between teachers and parents originate with the parents. When they have emotional problems or mental illnesses, for example, they tend to be less involved at school or, when they are involved, their accompanying interpersonal style strains the parent–teacher relationship (Kohl et al. 2000). Sometimes their dissatisfaction with life in general is misdirected towards the school, leading to complaints that alienate their child’s teachers (Kohl et al. 2000). Parents who are impoverished and discriminated against (e.g. racially) can have low self-efficacy as a result of being unable to improve their circumstances (Ackerman et al. 2004; Diener et al. 2003). Those who have endured verbal abuse may be convinced that they are too helpless to take control of their lives. (The irony here is that it takes the most tremendous strength to be able to keep themselves and their family functioning despite the trauma.) When their low self-efficacy is combined with attributions blaming their children for their behaviour and a high need in parents to exert control over their children, it will translate into harsh or even abusive parenting. Given the impact of this on children’s academic and social adjustment and your duty towards child protection, you can give parents more normative explanations for their children’s behaviour, suggest alternative parenting strategies (see Porter 2006), or arrange or recommend parent education sessions on behavioural guidance. Parents in strained circumstances tend to be more isolated than betterresourced families (Papero 2005). Although you may not be in a position to provide emotional support yourself you could, for example, provide a parents’ lounge in the school where parents can congregate and support each other.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

168


Focus on solutions A solution-focused approach is the same for families experiencing multiple problems as for those who are more advantaged: find out from them which problem is their priority and assist them in solving that (Fisch & Schlanger 1999). This will relieve them of their greatest source of stress and might open the way for spontaneous improvement in other troubling aspects of their lives. Even if that is not the case, their early success will give them the confidence to tackle their next problem. At a deeper level, solution-focused approaches openly acknowledge social forces that oppress cultural minorities, women and those living in poverty, to name but a few. Although you are powerless to control these external factors, you can challenge the message that such circumstances often convey to parents about their personal worth. The first step will be to acknowledge the special stressors they face in bringing up young people within a subculture of deprivation, violence and (where relevant) racism. You can ask these parents what it is like for them to have to function under oppression: does it cause them to believe that they cannot raise healthy children? Do they feel criticised and believe that they have to be perfect to counter stereotypes (say, about single parents or people from their culture)? How do they manage to raise their children in such a loving way in an environment characterised by poverty, prejudice, disadvantage or violence? (De Jong & Berg 2002).

Recommend additional services for families Your informal conversations and routine meetings with parents can give them support to meet their children’s needs. However, when parents overwhelm you with their distress, it is crucial to be mindful that counselling them is not your role. Therefore, when parents are recounting traumatic events, direct their thinking to how this is affecting their children and ask how they would like you to respond to their child at school. For example, when a parent is recounting a violent incident, you could ask questions such as, ‘And where was Seth at the time? How did he react? How were you able to look after him while feeling so frightened yourself? What do you think he needs from us today?’ and so on (Gowen & Nebrig 2002). Parents’ depression can result from their dire living circumstances and therefore their emotional wellbeing may not improve until their circumstances alter for the better (although the reverse is also true). Those who are enduring hardship can benefit from four types of support: emotional comfort, information and advice, practical assistance and ideological support (e.g. for strategies they plan to implement to solve a problem) (Haslam, Pakenham & Smith 2006). When parents need purely


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


169

practical assistance, although you cannot be responsible for delivering this yourself, you can advise them of agencies that can help improve their quality of life by providing access to better housing, financial support or other community services such as translators. Nevertheless, you must not attempt to secure services for them that they are not asking for, as that would compound their helplessness. If family adversity causes you to be concerned about the quality of care that parents are providing for their children, you must report these concerns to your local child welfare agency.

Conclusion Students who are least well equipped to adjust to school are those with stressful lives and insufficient resources to support their learning (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2000; Schulting et al. 2005). In the face of family, neighbourhood and social stressors, these are the children and families who most need support to enhance both student engagement and parental involvement (Schulting et al. 2005). As children are exposed to multiple familial, social and personal adversities, their risk of maladjustment increases, with stress continuing to affect their wellbeing for some years afterwards (Appleyard et al. 2005; Rutter 1990). On the other hand, young people growing up in adverse circumstances can and do achieve well academically when their parents provide emotionally stable and stimulating environments (Davis-Kean 2005). Increased community support for disadvantaged parents will help them to parent responsively and thus avoid most negative outcomes for their children.

Additional resources Some of the following books will be useful for your own background reading; others will be specifically useful to parents.

Spouse abuse (partner violence) Engel, B. (2002). The emotionally abusive relationship: How to stop being abused and how to stop abusing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Evans, P. (1996). The verbally abusive relationship: How to recognize it and how to respond. (2nd ed.) Holbrook, MA: Adams Media Corporation. Paymar, M. (2000). Violent no more: Helping men end domestic abuse. Alameda, CA: Hunter House.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

170


Poverty Stanley, F., Richardson, S. & Prior, M. (2005). Children of the lucky country?: How Australian society has turned its back on children and why children matter. Sydney: Macmillan.

Resilience Seligman, M.E.P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L. & Gillham, J. (1995). The optimistic child. Sydney: Random House.

Grief Fitzgerald, H. (1992). The grieving child: A parent’s guide. New York: Fireside. McKissock, D. (1998). The grief of our children. Sydney: ABC. McKissock, M. & McKissock, D. (1995). Coping with grief. (3rd ed.) Sydney: ABC. Wakenshaw, M. (2002). Caring for your grieving child. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Weber, Z.A. (2001). Good grief: How to recover from grief, loss or a broken heart. Sydney: Margaret Gee. Wells, R. (2003). Helping children cope with change and loss. London: Sheldon. Westberg, G.E. (1992). Good grief. (rev. ed.) Melbourne: Fortress.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

10

Collaborating with parents whose children are abused

There are many kinds of safety that are required for children to learn. At the most basic level, there is physical safety… [This] is not enough, however. Safety also means emotional safety – the safety to be yourself, to be vulnerable, to ask for help, and to be warmly supported. Sapon-Shevin (1999, p. 13)

Throughout human history, children have been considered the property of their parents, to do with as they wished. Therefore, child abuse has long been a feature of all societies, with the murder of children, child sacrifice, mutilation, enslavement and sexual abuse all socially condoned in Western societies until the 4th century CE and still practised in many industrialising societies today. Sex was permitted with children aged over three years and one day, with abuse of a younger female child considered to be a crime against her father, not against the child (Grille 2005). Infanticide was widely practised; once it began to be discouraged, abandonment became common. In Paris in the 18th century, for example, as many as 25 per cent of infants were abandoned to foundling homes (where up to 99 per cent died within a year), to distant wet-nurses (resulting in the deaths of two thirds of the infants); into apprenticeships from as young as four years of age; and into lifelong servitude in monasteries or nunneries. The result was that more European children died from abandonment than from the combined plague epidemics (Grille 2005). This history still casts its shadow on modern life. By school age, perhaps as many as 70 per cent of children experiencing behavioural problems have suffered abuse or neglect (Thompson & Wyatt 1999). Although few teachers are trained to help child victims, being attuned to victimisation is crucial, as it can have consequences for young people’s current and future social and emotional wellbeing, and their engagement in learning.

171


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

172


Types of abuse Child maltreatment comprises neglect of children’s physical or emotional needs, and physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Of these types, neglect constitutes more reported cases than the other forms in total (Haynes-Seman & Baumgarten 1998), although emotional abuse is probably the most pervasive but more difficult to quantify and thus report (Thompson & Wyatt 1999). Many children suffer from multiple forms of abuse simultaneously. This fact complicates calculation of the rate of child abuse, with estimates varying, as reported in Box 10.1. Some researchers propose that the rates would be close to 20 per cent, given that so much child maltreatment goes unrecognised and unreported. In a study whose design was likely to understimate, rather than overestimate, prevalence, Finkelhor and colleagues (2007) found that half of children aged 2 to 17 years experienced two or more types of victimisation in the previous year, with 18 per cent experiencing multiple incidents of many types. These types spanned physical

Box 10.1 Statistics of child abuse Estimates of overall rates 4 per cent Gilding 1997; Rossman & Rosenberg 1998 11 per cent Deater-Deckard & Dodge 1997 Reported rates of physical, emotional abuse or neglect 16.5 per cent Afifi et al. 2006 Sexual abuse Girls: 15 per cent 22–38 per cent Boys: 7 per cent 9–16 per cent

Kim & Cicchetti 2006 Rossman, Hughes & Hanson 1998 Kim & Cicchetti 2006 Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Rossman et al. 1998

Perpetrators of sexual abuse • 6–13 per cent are strangers to the victim (Briggs & McVeity 2000) • up to 85 per cent of perpetrators are male • 20–50 per cent of offences (including rape) are committed by adolescents • half of adolescent sexual abuse comprises sibling incest (Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Metzner & Ryan 1995; Vizard, Monck & Misch 1995) • 13 per cent of perpetrators are aged 8–12 years (Vizard et al. 1995)


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


173

assault, peer or sibling victimisation, property victimisation, witnessing another being victimised, sexual assault and physical maltreatment. Sexual abuse involves the exploitation and coercion of children by someone more powerful than them. Again, prevalence estimates vary (as seen in Box 10.1), although most studies find a ratio of 1 male to 2.5 female victims (Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Rossman et al. 1998). However, homosexual abuse of boys is vastly under-reported, in which case there is some suspicion that victimisation rates across the genders may be less disparate than research findings indicate. Sexual abuse commonly persists in excess of two years, with the peak age of onset being seven to eight years of age for females and prior to puberty for males (Webster 2001). However, some children may have been sexually abused in early childhood and not know it, because at the time they lacked a cognitive framework to understand what was happening to them (Haynes-Seman & Baumgarten 1998).

A profile of perpetrators Most childhood abuse is perpetrated by someone familiar to the victim. In many cases, this is a parent or another close friend or relative, such as older siblings or their adolescent friends.

Perpetrators of neglect Parents’ risk of becoming emotionally detached from their children and consequently abusing them emotionally or physically rises to 17 times the average when parents are aged under 21 years; were themselves abused in childhood; have current emotional difficulties such as depression, poor impulse control and low self-efficacy; endure poverty; live with a violent partner; or misuse drugs (Dixon, Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis 2005a; Dixon, Hamilton-Giachritsis & Browne 2005b; Frias-Armenta 2002; Mapp 2006; Mullen et al. 1996; Thompson & Wyatt 1999). Although the use of illicit drugs occurs across all sectors of the community and substance use alone does not lead to child abuse (Hogan, Myers & Elswick 2006), parental drug taking is an added risk for those families who are already disadvantaged in other respects (Hanson & Carta 1995).

Verbal abuse Verbal abuse is the glue that keeps all the others in place. Although there will be little you can do to protect your students from abuse to which they are subjected at home, schools can become havens from verbal harassment.


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

174


Yet, 15 per cent of students suffer repeated verbal abuse from their teachers from as early as their first year of school and persisting many years through to adolescence (Brendgen et al. 2006; Delfabbro et al. 2006). One quarter of these students are also bullied by their peers (Delfabbro et al. 2006), perhaps because the public nature of teacher abuse gives permission for peers to treat the targeted student with similar disrespect. Those most vulnerable to abuse by teachers are low-achieving boys who are socially and academically alienated, typically with attention difficulties and low motivation, whose rebellious and disruptive behaviour feels to teachers like a threat to their control of the classroom (Brendgen et al. 2006; Delfabbro et al. 2006). As a result of abuse by teachers, victims are more likely to drop out of school, engage in high-risk behaviours such as alcohol and drug use and, if supported by similarly disenchanted peers, to become delinquent in adolescence (Brendgen et al. 2006, 2007; Delfabbro et al. 2006). Abuse by teachers does not add further risk to very low-achieving students who would never have completed high school, but does compromise the academic outcomes of students with mild learning difficulties who, with support rather than censure, might have remained engaged in learning (Brendgen et al. 2006).

Physical abusers Parents who injure their children tend to be easily angered, were subjected themselves to harsh discipline or abuse in childhood, experience high levels of economic stress and have little knowledge about normal behaviour and parenting strategies (Nix et al. 1999). They employ harsh or violent parenting in frustration at their children’s inability to comply with developmentally inappropriate expectations (Dixon et al. 2005b; FriasArmenta 2002; Mapp 2006; Nix et al. 1999). In other words, physical abuse commonly occurs when disciplinary encounters escalate.

Sexual abuse perpetrators Approximately 20 per cent of adult males and 8 per cent of females report being sexually interested in children, with as many as 7 per cent of males and 3 per cent of females saying that they would engage in sexual activity with children if they could avoid detection (Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Vizard et al. 1995). The factor that translates this high level of sexual interest in children into actual abuse is children’s lack of power compared to adults. They trust adults to keep them safe, are not capable of assessing adults’ motives and are taught to obey adults (Briggs & McVeity 2000). There are two types of sexual abusers: opportunistic abusers who are sexually attracted to children and molest those within their family or


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


175

circle of acquaintances; and paedophiles who deliberately seek out places frequented by children for the purpose of locating a victim. Various studies have documented that adult paedophiles molest children between 150 (Bromberg & Johnson 2001) and 560 times before being caught, across as many as 380 victims (Metzner & Ryan 1995). Rates for opportunistic abusers are uncertain, but will be considerably lower than this. Other statistics about perpetrators are given in Box 10.1. A staggering 19 per cent of incidents of sexual abuse take place at school (Bromberg & Johnson 2001). Adolescent sexual offending against adults, peers or children occurs within a broader pattern of serious antisocial or delinquent behaviour and academic disengagement (Lavoie et al. 2002; Ronis & Borduin 2007). The backgrounds of sexual offenders differ in no major respects from nonsexual offenders, with both groups typically having been subjected to harsh parental discipline (Lavoie et al. 2002). Contrary to urban myths, sexual abuse seems unrelated to whether perpetrators were victims themselves in childhood. This myth came out of research that asked adult perpetrators whether they had been abused as children, to which many answered in the affirmative. But this does not prove causality, as many non-perpetrators would also have been abused. There is also an inherent error in logic in such studies, demonstrated by the fact that many perpetrators would also report that they drink coffee, yet this is clearly unrelated to their later molesting behaviour. When, instead, you follow child victims prospectively, it eventuates that most of them do not proceed to becoming perpetrators (as far as we know) (Vizard et al. 1995). This stands to reason, as the majority of victims appear to be female, while the majority of perpetrators are male. This indicates that most females and the majority of male victims overcome their early abusive experiences, at least to the extent of not imposing further exploitation on the next generation. Abusers use coercion, emotional blackmail and subterfuge to develop a ‘special’ relationship that will ensnare their child victims and subsequently discourage them from reporting the abuse. Other than this pattern of socially coercive and manipulative behaviour, perpetrators’ characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, mental illness, family functioning, intellectual disabilities, delinquency and low self-esteem, are all unrelated to their offending. Other factors that might be slightly linked to later sexually abusive offending include low social competence and social isolation, having been subjected to physical and heterosexual sexual abuse as a child, and having parents who were molested in their childhoods (particularly in cases of adolescent perpetrators of incestuous molestation) (Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Vizard et al. 1995).


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

176


Effects of abuse Box 10.2 lists some common signs and effects of abuse. Many of these are manifested while the abuse is current; other patterns persist even after the abuse has ended; while still others have a ‘sleeper’ effect, not appearing until one or more years after the abuse has ceased. After the termination of the assaults, effects tend to persist longer for younger children and those who receive less support upon discovery or disclosure. Of all the domains of development, children’s social competence is the most impaired by neglect or abuse. Those who experience maltreatment from their parents develop expectations that others will be uncaring and, applying these expectations to peers, either anticipate hostile behaviour and act aggressively towards them, or cope with their distress by constricting emotion and lacking empathy. In short, they either blame others or themselves. Defining other people as hostile seems to protect them from self-blame and resulting emotional problems (Lansford et al. 2006) but, while such responses help them to cope with their maltreatment, the reactions are maladaptive in peer settings and contribute to persistent problems in maintaining satisfying interpersonal relationships. When the abuse has been occurring for some time, it is difficult to draw a link between it and children’s behaviours. However, if the abuse has just begun, you might see a sudden change in children’s behaviour corresponding with the onset of the abuse. Their behavioural patterns can resemble ADHD or oppositional disorder, or their opposite, which has been termed ‘compulsive compliance’, whereby children suppress their own emotions in order to comply with adult demands, modifying or falsifying their feelings to gain adult approval.

Long-term adjustment In the long term, children’s adjustment following abuse depends on four factors: •

• • •

characteristics of the abuse itself: the type or combinations of abuse to which children are subjected and its chronicity, severity and duration; the age of onset and at which the abuse ceased; the relationship of the perpetrator to the child; and the use or threat of force the presence of additional family and neighbourhood stressors children’s characteristics and personal coping skills the amount of social support offered to victims and their family upon discovery or disclosure (Eckenrode, Laird & Doris 1993; Webster 2001).


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


177

Box 10.2 Signs and effects of abuse Emotional signs • Neglected children in particular, but abused children overall, typically have lowered self-esteem. Parental criticism and insults cause them to see themselves as less worthy and to doubt that their peers will accept them. • Abused children do not learn to regulate their emotions and impulses, as a result of which they tend to vent rather than inhibit angry responses and other negative emotions. • They are hypervigilant for signs of potential threat. • They remain emotionally disturbed for longer when observing unresolved conflict between others. • They have few emotional coping strategies. • Maltreated children have little understanding of their own or others’ feelings. • Many display anxiety, depression, fearfulness or agitation. • Most have low self-efficacy as a result of being unable to deflect the abuse. • Prior abuse can leave individuals vulnerable to post-traumatic stress reactions if exposed to subsequent traumas. Social skills • The most common characteristic of abused children is aggressive behaviour, particularly when their victimisation is chronic and severe. Physically abused children in particular have high rates of hostility and aggression towards peers and adults. • Abused children often display social anxiety and withdraw socially. They may interact little with peers and are less responsive to friendly overtures from surrounding adults or children. • Their interactions are often unskilful. • They are more disruptive and cause peers more distress. • Their abilities to appreciate others’ perspectives and be empathic are impaired, being less likely to show concern or offer help to upset peers, and perhaps even delighting in their distress. • They demonstrate poor social problem-solving strategies and impaired conflict-resolution skills. • They experience peer rejection. • Some assault or threaten adults in the belief that adults can be dangerous. • They may not seek comfort from others when distressed.

➡


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM

178


• • • •

Alternatively, abused children can be highly dependent on adults. They may ‘freeze’ in the presence of their abuser. They might be reluctant to accompany a particular adult, or adults in general. Abused young people are slightly more prone to perpetrating dating violence.

Behaviours • Maltreated children’s behaviour can regress, whereby they display some demanding patterns that were typical of them some time ago or they adopt new behaviours not seen before. Some revert to baby talk, bedwetting or becoming fearful. • Their behaviour is often impulsive. • Abused children are commonly hostile and uncooperative with adults. • Some inflict injury on themselves (in the absence of severe sensory integration dysfunction). • Many have disturbed sleep and nightmares. • Sexually abused children might start talking about secrets or of something nasty that is happening to a friend or a doll. • They might display sexualised behaviour such as blatant flirting, excessive touching of their own genitals or sexual play with another child. • They might re-enact the abuse in drawings, play or with their toys. • Many have a history of running away from home. • In later life they are at increased risk of violent offending, alcohol and drug abuse and self-harm, particularly when reared in highly adverse family and social conditions. Academic skills Children’s disorganised home environments, disrupted routines and inadequate supervision disrupt their ability to complete academic work at home or be fully prepared for the school day. Long-term elevated cortisol levels affect a wide range of brain functions. • Neglect results in a lack of stimulation that causes overall intellectual impairments and delayed language skills, particularly verbal expression. • Neglected and physically abused children tend to perform at low levels academically. At younger ages, this is most pronounced for reading skills whereas, by late primary school, the disadvantage is across all subject areas.

➡


15/1/08 11:47:44 AM


•

• •

• •

•

179

Neglected children are often passive and helpless in their task orientation, give up easily, do not cope well with frustration, are distractible, impulsive and lacking in initiative. They are more reliant on adult directions and the administration of external consequences, being less intrinsically motivated. Physically abused children’s reduced engagement in learning and view of themselves as academically incompetent lead to declines in their school achievement, with the result that they are more likely to experience academic failure, be retained in a grade, have high levels of absenteeism and elevated rates of special education referrals. Children who have been neglected or physically abused are more likely to be suspended from school or drop out early. Children experiencing sexual abuse typically achieve reasonably well at school. This is remarkable given that their anxiety levels must make it difficult to concentrate on academic tasks. Sexually abused children often display knowledge of adult sexual behaviour that is in advance of their years or developmental level.

Physical signs • Children enduring physical abuse may have injuries such as bruises, welts, burns or fractures that have no convincing causal explanation. • They might show little response to pain. • Those suffering sexual abuse can have injuries or infections to the genital or anal areas or throat. • Because their immune system is compromised by chronic stress, many maltreated children suffer long-term somatic complaints. • Sexually abused girls experience earlier menarche, sexual debut and childbirth (18 months earlier than average) and problems with sexual intimacy. Sources: Bolger & Patterson 2001; Bonner et al. 1992; Bromberg & Johnson 2001; Bugental & Happaney 2004; Burack et al. 2006; Carrey et al. 1995; Essa & Murray 1999; Feiring, Taska & Lewis 2002; Fergusson & Lynskey 1997; Flores, Cicchetti & Rogosch 2005; George & Main 1979; Glaser 2000; Goodwin, Fergusson & Horwood 2004; Gowen & Nebrig 2002; Haynes-Seman & Baumgarten 1998; Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman 1984; Kim & Cicchetti 2004, 2006; Klimes-Dougan & Kistner 1990; Koenig, Cicchetti & Rogosch 2000; Lavoie et al. 2002; Luthar et al. 2000; Maughan & Cicchetti 2002; Mullen et al. 1996; Pollak et al. 2005; Rothbaum, Grauer & Rubin 1997; Shields, Ryan & Cicchetti 2001; Shonk & Cicchetti 2001; Solomon & Serres 1999; Thompson & Wyatt 1999; Trickett 1998; Vigil, Geary & Byrd-Craven 2005; Webster 2001; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow 1990.


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

180


Characteristics of the abuse Of the maltreatment types, neglect is most likely to begin early and persist through a child’s life (Bolger & Patterson 2001). When abuse begins at a young age, it tends to be more frequent and severe, to persist for longer, be perpetrated by someone close to the victim and entail multiple forms of victimisation – commonly emotional abuse coupled with neglect and/or physical abuse (Bolger & Patterson 2001; Quas, Goodman & Jones 2003). There is a cascading effect, with early victimisation leading to subsequent adversities, emotional difficulties and further abuse (Finkelhor, Ormrod & Turner 2007). Repeated episodes of abuse cause victims to feel shame and to blame themselves for not deflecting the maltreatment (Feiring et al. 2002; Quas et al. 2003). Common outcomes of abuse are listed in Box 10.2. Of the types, physical abuse produces developmental and social–emotional impairments that are thought to be more damaging than are the actual physical injuries inflicted on children (Bonner et al. 1992; Haynes-Seman & Baumgarten 1998; Kim & Cicchetti 2006). For sexual abuse, the main emotional outcomes seem to be symptoms resembling post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly because this form of abuse is often accompanied by others (Finkelhor et al. 2007). When occurring in isolation, physical and sexual abuse seem to be the most detrimental to children’s adjustment, partly because they act as ‘gateways’ to subsequent abuse of other types (Finkelhor et al. 2007). Nonetheless, those at even greater risk of emotional adjustment problems are young people who experience multiple forms of abuse, not least because they are more likely to blame themselves when multiple individuals maltreat them (Finkelhor et al. 2007). Their reactions can be manifested as acute distress or trauma, or an exacerbation of any emotional difficulties already in evidence prior to their victimisation (Finkelhor et al. 2007).

Social stressors High levels of family stress increase the likelihood that abused children will experience resulting emotional difficulties (Lansford et al. 2006). Mothers who were abused in childhood tend to expose their children to multiple everyday stressors that are a hazard to their wellbeing, such as moving house, changes in schools or in family composition, physical assaults and insensitive parenting (Collishaw et al. 2007). When parents are the perpetrators, the effects of abuse are compounded by the fact that the maltreatment is happening within dysfunctioning family relationships that are characterised by unreliable parenting, neglect, indifference, violence, isolation and the humiliation, terrorisation and corruption of children (as they are enticed into antisocial behaviours) (Harter 1998). Children whose parents maltreat them are


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM


181

highly vulnerable because they must continue to rely on their parents for survival at the same time as being under threat from them (Cole-Detke & Kobak 1998; Harter 1998). In some respects, neglected children might be most disadvantaged in that they are less likely to learn how to form caring relationships with others (Bonner et al. 1992); alternatively, although abused children develop relationships, these are often damaging to them (Steele 1986).

Children’s characteristics The third factor that influences the longer-term outcomes of maltreatment is children’s age at the time the abuse occurs and ceases. Children aged under five years are at more serious risk than older children of physical injury. At younger ages, children are prone to believing that bad things happen because people deserve it and, therefore, preschool-aged children are more likely than their older counterparts to blame themselves for physical or sexual abuse, while adolescents are also prone to self-blame but for different reasons: they expect themselves to have enough skill to deflect the abuse (Quas et al. 2003). Perhaps because of their immature understandings of what has occurred, young children experience higher levels of post-traumatic stress than adolescents (Feiring et al. 2002). On the whole, girls appear to be most negatively affected by sexual abuse, although little research has examined the effects of homosexual abuse on boys, which is probably the least reported category of all. Girls experience greater emotional distress when physical threats and force accompany sexual abuse (Webster 2001); in contrast, boys who were not physically forced to take part may misconstrue this as a sign that they were willing, while those who were forced may see themselves as weak for being unable to repel the abuse (Quas et al. 2003). Children’s personal resources or coping skills also affect how they react to being abused. As discussed in chapter 9, avoidance (that is, pretending that the abuse is not happening) seems to be the least productive coping strategy and is related to subsequent emotional maladjustment (Quas et al. 2003), as are unresolved feelings of shame and pessimistic thinking (Feiring et al. 2002).

Supports available to children upon discovery or disclosure The fourth factor influencing outcomes for abused young people is the amount of support they receive upon discovery or disclosure. This support from family and friends may be more crucial than characteristics of the abuse itself (Jozon & Lindblad 2006). Mothers are likely to be most supportive when they themselves are not closely related to the perpetrator; in contrast, when mothers react with distress or blame the child for the


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

182


abuse, victims are more likely to blame themselves and be less resilient as a result (Quas et al. 2003).

Support for students It is rare that your students will disclose directly that they are being abused (Briggs 1993); instead they may give vague hints or display some of the signs listed in Box 10.2. Do not ignore these signs as doing so increases the chances that the abuse will recur, both to this child and to others in the perpetrator’s life. Thus, the first measure for supporting abused students is to recognise that it occurs across all sectors of society. Hence the saying: I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.

Even once abuse is suspected, children’s maltreatment will cause them to distrust adults, which, in turn, can mean that attempts by adults to be supportive are both less welcomed and less effective at promoting their resilience (Flores et al. 2005).

Gain limited information When you see students with unusual injuries, ask them how these happened, and do not believe implausible explanations. As they might have been told not to tell anyone about the abuse, reassure them that it is wrong for anyone to tell them to keep a secret forever, and that they can talk to you about anything. Encourage them to talk, but do not force them to confide in you. Do not ask for detailed descriptions of an incident: you need only enough information to ascertain whether a report is justified. Experienced investigators are best suited to establishing the facts in a way that will not add to the victim’s distress or contaminate the chain of evidence should there be legal proceedings.

Report suspected abuse However the alarm is raised, do not promise students that you will keep the abuse a secret, or suggest that they should forget about what has happened. The sexual assault of children or adults is a criminal offence that must be reported to police. In many jurisdictions, teachers are legally obliged to report all other forms of child abuse as well. But even when not mandated legally, you have a moral obligation to protect your students. Therefore, if a student’s disclosure or behaviours cause you to suspect that he or she is unsafe, you must report these concerns to your local child welfare agency for their investigation. Given the huge upsurge in reports of allegations to welfare agencies (probably reflecting increased awareness


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM


183

rather than any increased incidence), you will have to be persistent in following up your report, to ensure that action is taken.

Support abused children emotionally Most abused children tend to be given only the required medical treatment. Thus, it will often fall to school personnel to provide the emotional support these students need to surmount the adversity and injustice they have endured. Four measures can be particularly helpful. First, because abuse makes individuals overly vigilant as they try to read others’ intentions and scan their environment for indications of danger, they will need permission to refocus on their own growth. While understanding that maltreated students will view their world as dangerous, you must suggest an alternative point of view. Therefore, to help them get back in touch with life’s positive possibilities, when they appear to be enjoying an activity, comment on this. Second, enhancing abused children’s self-esteem is especially important. As with adult victims of abuse, children who are ill treated often lose sight of their own resources. To counteract this, comment on their strengths and encourage their efforts to cope. Survivors of childhood abuse use tremendous courage and often ingenuity to deal with the maltreatment both at the time and subsequently. At the same time as being empathic to the injustices they have endured, however, it is also important to highlight the parts of them that are ‘normal’ so they do not come to see themselves as fragile, different or damaged but can use their strengths, interests and passions to experience life in ways that are not connected to their abuse (Berg & Steiner 2003). Third, given that social competence is fundamental to resilience (Luthar et al. 2000), guide maltreated students to use pro-social skills to improve their peer relationships and, in so doing, gain the emotional support from peers that will help them to recover. A final measure is to invite a supportive relative or family elder of a maltreated student into the school, perhaps for reading support or to tell stories from his or her culture. The presence at school of a revered relative can reassure students of their connectedness to their family. Furthermore, in your conversation with the relative, you can enlist him or her to provide the student with specific support outside of school.

Guide students’ behaviour The behaviours of students who have been maltreated tend to cause them to be ignored in schools, unless they are behaving disruptively, when their interactions with teachers often comprise coercive discipline (Hoffman-


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

184


Plotkin & Twentyman 1984). However, this adds yet another layer to the abuse they have already endured. Therefore, it will be important to ensure that you do not respond to their provocative behaviour with controlling discipline (Reinke & Herman 2002). Although the topic of behaviour management is beyond the scope of this text (see instead Porter 2007a, 2007b, 2008), your behavioural interventions need to guide students to act considerately, rather than to comply with adult directives, so that they learn that they are allowed to resist abuse. Some guidance measures include the following. •

• •

•

Listen to and validate students’ feelings, as this will affirm who they are and that they are valued. This validation will make it less likely that they will collude with sexual abuse in an attempt to gain the affectionate contact with adults that they are not receiving otherwise. Allow students to be assertive about their needs. Avoid all praise and other rewards for thoughtful behaviour and academic achievements, as these teach an external locus of causality (Deci et al. 1991; Deci, Koestner & Ryan 1999, 2001; Ryan & Deci 1996, 2000) – that is, low self-efficacy – to which abused children are already prone. Deliver no punishment when students behave disruptively or aggressively, but instead help them regain command of their emotions by giving them time away from the classroom doing something soothing, either alone or in the company of a trusted friend. (See chapter 7 for a description of time away.) Whereas a behaviourist view would interpret this as rewarding antisocial behaviour, a humanist view sees it as teaching students how to handle emotional arousal, practice at which maltreated children are not gaining elsewhere.

Everyday opportunities for students to be self-governing are actually more powerful forms of protection than child-protectiveness programs, which not only may not empower students to resist abuse (Bevill & Gast 1998), particularly when under threat by someone they know (Ko & Cosden 2001) but may even terrify younger children (Bonner et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 2005; Jordan 1993). Moreover, individual personal-safety programs may be failing to recognise that young people are often experiencing multiple forms of abuse and therefore need broader protection (Finkelhor et al. 2007). Nevertheless, ignorance about their bodies and sexual matters increases young people’s vulnerability to abuse and therefore child safety topics can be of some value within the curriculum.

Support for parents Many parents who themselves were abused or subjected to harsh discipline in childhood avow never to repeat this with the next generation and instead develop close, nurturing relationships with their children (Wyman et al.


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM


185

1999). Social support for parents can make this decision a reality by reducing their stress and, in turn, improving their responsiveness as parents (Jaffee et al. 2004; Meyers 1999). Support can also improve their self-efficacy, which, in turn, allows survivors of childhood abuse to adjust emotionally and develop a less coercive parenting style in later life (Mapp 2006).

Educate your parent group about child abuse You will be more able to recruit parents’ involvement in child protection when you have raised their awareness about child abuse, informed them of its signs and your obligations to protect children, and familiarised them with reporting procedures. Dissemination of information through training sessions or written materials can set a foundation for constructive intervention by school staff in the event that abuse is suspected in individual students.

Support parents during the investigation When reporting abuse allegations, so that parents remain informed, you can ask whether they would like to call the child protection team themselves in your presence, or whether they would prefer you to make the call in their presence (Keyser 2006). Having both of you in attendance when the report is made will allow you both to hear first-hand how the investigation will proceed. When parents feel a sense of control over the process and receive moral support to notify the child protection agency, they will be less stressed and therefore less likely to subject their child to further maltreatment as a result of the disclosure. As the investigation unfolds, the non-offending adults will need ongoing emotional support (Briggs 1993). This will seldom be your role, but instead will require you to refer them to outside agencies. However, in your conversations, you can express empathy and, when necessary, redirect their focus onto their child’s predicament by asking what they need you to do to help him or her – see chapter 9.

Advise parents how to support their sexually abused child In their own outrage and hurt, parents can be uncertain how to help their child once allegations of abuse have been made. They might find the following suggestions helpful. •

Despite their anger – or perhaps because of it – it is unwise for them to confront the perpetrator themselves. He or she may deceive them into believing a plausible explanation of the incidents, which makes it possible for the abuse to continue. Instead, they need to allow child welfare specialists to carry out the investigation.


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

186

•

•

•

•

•


Parents must be sure not to blame their children for the abuse itself or for the disruption that their disclosure causes. Instead, they need to explain to their children that, unfortunately, what was done to them happens to lots of children and, therefore, was not provoked by anything that they did. The children will need reassurance that if the perpetrator threatened them to keep them from disclosing the abuse, these threats were just lies to keep themselves out of trouble. Adults must avoid making negative comments about the abuser because when the children know the perpetrator, they are likely to have both positive and negative feelings about that person. They will want the relationship with the person to continue but the abuse to stop (although ongoing contact may not be wise). Therefore, advise parents to explain that the behaviour – not the person – is the problem. The behaviour is unfair because children cannot say ‘no’ to adults who trick them. Advise parents to stay close to their children after a disclosure of abuse, while resisting the urge to over-protect or unnecessarily restrict them. Children need their parents and others to be normally affectionate, so that they do not assume that their parents no longer love them or are punishing them for being abused or for disclosing it. The parents will need to tell their other children what has happened and check whether they too have been molested. They might take this opportunity to educate all their children in self-protection.

In those cultures in which sexual issues are not discussed openly, it can be useful to establish an alliance with the family’s religious adviser or other senior community figure who could speak with the parents on the child’s behalf (Haboush 2007). Otherwise, the family’s shame could cause them to expel the child from the family, which would necessitate foster placement and thus instigate further trauma for the child.

Recommend additional services for families The most successful interventions for child abuse involve supporting and strengthening families. This is likely to be beyond the role of school personnel, but it might be possible for you to refer parents to agencies that can offer both practical and counselling help. Many sexually abused children worry whether they have been permanently injured physically and therefore can be reassured by receiving a medical examination, while the parents themselves can benefit from counselling, particularly if their partner was the perpetrator. Therefore, it can be useful to give them some reading material and the contact details of a parent support group, psychologist or family therapist who could support them during the investigation (Briggs 1993).


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM


187

Secure support for yourself Your outrage and hurt on behalf of a maltreated student will be compounded if it reactivates memories of similar trauma in your own life, or when the perpetrators of the abuse are the student’s parents. You might be tempted to avoid contact with them for your own physical or emotional protection, or to collude with the family by minimising the significance of the abuse in order to maintain a working relationship with them (Harskamp 2002). Given the emotional climate, potential risk of intimidation and the ramifications of malpractice, you will need to access a consultant who can support you in your ongoing contact with parents while their child remains your student.

Responding to allegations of abuse by staff Immediately upon receipt of an allegation of abuse by a member of the school staff, the principal will need to take the following steps (Mikkelsen 1997). • •

• • • •

•

•

Report the allegation to the child protection authorities. Document this call. Have the accused staff member leave the premises immediately. He or she cannot return to work until the allegation has been investigated. If the allegation is not credible, this will seem doubly unfair, but is for the protection of all involved, including the accused. Recommend or assist the accused staff member to access a legal or industrial advocate. Contact your governing body. Obtain legal advice. Advise everyone involved in the investigation to cooperate in a matter-of-fact manner: expressing outraged indignation or being defensive may signal guilt rather than innocence. To avoid innuendo, gossip and uncertainty as the news spreads through the school grapevine, write to all parents within hours of the allegation being raised, advising them that there has been an allegation of abuse by a member of staff (without divulging names). In order to check that there have been no other victims, this letter should request that parents ask all their children if anything has happened lately that made them feel unsafe (with the wording being adjusted according to students’ ages). Parents could also reflect on whether their children’s behaviour has changed recently in any of the ways listed in Box 10.2, a copy of which could be included with the letter. The principal will need to call a meeting at which staff can discuss the traumatic effects of the allegations on themselves and plan how to fill the staffing gap left by the suspended staff member.


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

188


In most cases in which a staff member has been accused of abuse, parents will choose to withdraw the student from the school. But, if not, teaching and other staff must be absolutely certain not to discuss the allegation with the student or attempt to convince him or her to retract the allegation. But neither should staff feel so uncertain about how to respond to the student that they avoid interacting with him or her altogether (Mikkelsen 1997).

Conclusion Families whose children are maltreated are typically isolated. Supporting them can be complicated by the many other stressful conditions existing within their families and neighbourhoods, such as poverty, family mobility, unemployment, welfare reliance, substance abuse, or untreated mental illness of parents (Thompson & Wyatt 1999). Such families sorely test a family-driven model of collaboration. Yet, your access to them in the interests of their child requires that you look for exceptions to their abusive patterns and expand on those. You will need to hold onto the belief that, like all others, these parents have within them the resources to overcome their personal demons and that all environments, no matter how grim, can support them to use these skills.

Additional resources Adams, C. & Fay, J. (1992). Helping your child recover from sexual abuse. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Baker, C.D. (2002). Female survivors of sexual abuse. East Sussex, UK: Brunner-Routledge. Bass, E. & Davis, L. (1993). Beginning to heal: A first guide for female survivors of child sexual abuse. London: Vermilion. Briggs, F. (1993). Why my child?: Supporting the families of victims of child sexual abuse. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Briggs, F. & McVeity, M. (2000). Teaching children to protect themselves. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Davis, L. (1991). Allies in healing: When the person you love was sexually abused as a child. New York: Harper Perennial. Hunter, M. (1990). Abused boys: The neglected victims of sexual abuse. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Lew, M. (1990). Victims no longer: A guide for men recovering from sexual child abuse. London: Cedar. Sonkin, D.J. (1998). Wounded boys; heroic men: A man’s guide to recovering from child abuse. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media Corporation.


15/1/08 11:47:45 AM

Bibliography

Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R. & McCarty, F. (2000). Structural model of Head Start classroom quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 115–134. Aber, J.L. & Ellwood, D.T. (2001). Thinking about children in time. In B. Bradbury, S.P. Jenkins and J. Micklewright (Eds.) The dynamics of child poverty in industrialised countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281–300. Ackerman, B.P., Brown, E.D., D’Eramo, K.S. & Izard, C.E. (2002). Maternal relationship instability and the school behavior of children from disadvantaged families. Developmental Psychology, 38 (5), 694–704. Ackerman, B.P., Brown, E.D. & Izard, C.E. (2004). The relations between persistent poverty and contextual risk and children’s behavior in elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 40 (3), 367–377. Ackerman, B.P., Kogos, J., Youngstrom, E., Schoff, K. & Izard, C. (1999). Family instability and the problem behaviors of children from economically disadvantaged families. Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 258–268. Adams, K.S. & Christenson S.L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship: Examination of parent–teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (5), 477–497. Afifi, T.O., Brownridge, D.A., Cox, B.J. & Sareen, J. (2006). Physical punishment, childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (10), 1093–1103. Aguilar, B., Sroufe, A., Egeland, B. & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the early-onset/ persistent and adolescent-onset antisocial behavior types: From birth to 16 years. Development and Psychopathology, 12 (2), 109–132. Ajmal, Y. (2001). Introducing solution-focused thinking. In Y. Ajmal and I. Rees (Eds.) Solutions in schools. London: BT Press, pp. 10–29. Alink, L.R.A., Mesman, J., Koot, H.M., van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M.N., Juffer, F., BakermansKranenburg, M.J. & van Ijzedoorn, M.H. (2006). The early childhood aggression curve: Development of physical aggression in 10– to 5–month old children. Child Development, 77 (4), 954–966. Allan, S.D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48 (6), 60–65. Alsop, G. (1997). Coping or counseling: Families of intellectually gifted students. Roeper Review, 20 (1), 28–34. Amatea, E.S. (1988). Brief strategic intervention with school behavior problems: A case of temper tantrums. Psychology in the Schools, 25 (2), 174–183.

189

02 Teach_parent_END_FINAL.indd 189

15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

190

Bibliography

Amatea, E.S. & Sherrard, P.A.D. (1989). Reversing the school’s response: A new approach to resolving persistent school problems. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 17 (1), 15–26. Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (4), 1269–1287. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Anastopoulos, A.D. & Barkley, R.A. (1992). Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. In C.E. Walker and M.C. Roberts (Eds.) Handbook of clinical child psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 413–430. Anderson, J.C., Funk, J.B., Elliott, R. & Smith, P.H. (2003). Parental support and pressure and children’s extracurricular activities: Relationships with amount of involvement and affective experience of participation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24 (2), 241–257. Andersson, B.-E. (1989). Effects of public day-care – a longitudinal study. Child Development, 60 (4), 857–866. Andersson, B.-E. (1992). Effects of day care on cognitive and socioemotional competence of thirteen-year-old Swedish schoolchildren. Child Development, 63 (1), 20–36. Andreas, J.B. & O’Farrell, T.J. (2007). Longitudinal associations between fathers’ heavy drinking patterns and children’s psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (1), 1–16. Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., van Dulmen, M.H.M. & Sroufe, L.A. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (3), 235–245. Armstrong, M. & Thorsborne, M. (2006). Restorative responses to bullying. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 175–188. Arnold, D.H., McWilliams, L. & Arnold, E.H. (1998). Teacher discipline and child misbehavior in day care: Untangling causality with correlational data. Developmental Psychology, 34 (2), 276–287. Asher, S.R. (1983). Social competence and peer status: Recent advances and future directions. Child Development, 54, 1427–1434. Ashton, J. (2004). Life after the shock! The impact on families of caring for young children with chronic illness. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 22–26. Ashton, J. & Bailey, J. (2004). Slipping through the policy cracks: Children with chronic illness in early childhood settings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 50–58. Auerbach, J.G., Landau, R., Berger, A., Arbelle, S., Faroy, M. & Karplus, M. (2005). Neonatal behavior of infants at familial risk for ADHD. Infant Behavior and Development, 28 (2), 220–234. Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological control on a child’s mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40 (6), 965–978. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). 3101.0 – Australian Demographic statistics, Sept. 2004. Retrieved 25 July 2007, from http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/featureartic lesbyReleaseDate/7F31BF47DCE 50135CA256FCE000007E6?OpenDocument.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

191

Bailey, D.B. Jr, Skinner, D., Correa, V., Arcia, E., Reyes-Blanes, M.E., Rodriguez, P., Vázquez-Montilla, E. & Skinner, M. (1999). Needs and supports reported by Latino families of young children with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104 (5), 437–451. Bailey, J.A., Hill, K.G., Oesterle, S. & Hawkins, J.D. (2006). Linking substance use and problem behavior across three generations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (3), 273–292. Bailey, S. (1998). Missionary zeal and surviving in the meantime. Eminent Australian address to the 7th National conference of the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted. June 1988, Hobart. Baillargeon, R.H., Normand, C.L., Séguin, J.R., Zoccolillo, M., Japel, C., Pérusse, D., Wu, H.-X., Boivin, M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2007a). The evolution of problem and social competence behaviors during toddlerhood: A prospective population-based cohort survey. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28 (1), 12–38. Baillargeon, R.H., Zoccolillo, M., Keenan, K., Côté, S., Pérusse, D., Wu, H.-X., Boivin, M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2007b). Gender differences in physical aggression: A prospective population-based survey of children before and after 2 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 43 (1), 13–26. Bain, S.K. & Bell, S.M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (3), 167–178. Baker, B.L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K.A. & Edelbrock, C. (2002). Behavior problems and parenting stress in families of three-year-old children with and without developmental delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107 (6), 433–444. Baker, B.L., McIntyre, L.L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K., Edelbrock, C. & Low, C. (2003). Pre-school children with and without developmental delay: Behaviour problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47 (4–5), 217–230. Bakermans–Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H. & Kroonenberg, P.M. (2004). Differences in attachment security between African–American and white children: Ethnicity or socio–economic status? Infant Behavior and Development, 27 (3), 417–433. Barkley, R.A. (1988). Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. In E.J. Mash and L.G. Terdal (Eds.) Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders. (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford, pp. 69–104. Barkley, R.A., Shelton, T.L., Crosswait, C., Moorehouse, M., Fletcher, K., Barrett, S., Jenkins, L. & Metevia, L. (2000). Multi-method psycho-educational intervention for preschool children with disruptive behavior: Preliminary results at posttreatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (3), 319–332. Barnes, J., Belsky, J., Broomfield, K.A., Dave, S., Frost, M., Melhuish, E. & The National Evaluation of Sure Start Research Team (2005). Disadvantaged but different: Variation among deprived communities in relation to child and family well-being. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (9), 952–962. Barnett, W.S. & Boyce, G.C. (1995). Effects of children with Down Syndrome on parents’ activities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100 (2), 115–127. Barrera, I. & Corso, R.M. (2002). Cultural competency as skilled dialogue. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22 (2), 103–113.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

192

Bibliography

Batshaw, M.L. & Conlon, C.J. (1997). Substance abuse: A preventable threat to development. In M.L. Batshaw (Ed.) Children with disabilities. (4th ed.) Sydney: MacLennan and Petty, pp. 143–162. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (1), 1–103. Beckman, P.J., Barnwell, D., Horn, E., Hanson, M.J., Gutierrez, S. & Lieber, J. (1998). Communities, families, and inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (1), 125–150. Belsky, J., Hsieh, K.-H. & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3 years: Differential susceptibility to rearing experience? Development and Psychopathology, 10 (2), 301–319. Benbow, C.P. (1991). Meeting the needs of gifted students through use of acceleration. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds and H.J. Walberg (Eds.) Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Volume 4: Emerging programs. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, pp. 23–36. Benbow, C.P. (1992). Challenging the gifted: Grouping and acceleration. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 59. Bendersky, M. & Lewis, M. (1999). Prenatal cocaine exposure and neonatal condition. Infant Behavior and Development, 22 (3), 353–366. Benner, A.D. & Mistry, R.S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income youths’ academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 140–153. Bennett, D.S., Bendersky, M. & Lewis, M. (2002). Children’s intellectual and emotional– behavioral adjustment at 4 years as a function of cocaine exposure, maternal characteristics, and environmental risk. Developmental Psychology, 38 (5), 648–658. Bennett, T., DeLuca, D. & Burns, B. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64 (1), 115–131. Bennett, T., Lee, H. & Lueke, B. (1998). Expectations and concerns: What mothers and fathers say about inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33 (2), 108–122. Bentley-Williams, R. & Butterfield, N. (1996). Transition from early intervention to school: A family focussed view of the issues involved. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 20 (2), 17–28. Berg, I.K. & Steiner, S. (2003). Children’s solution work. New York: Norton. Berk, L.E. & Landau, S. (1993). Private speech of learning disabled and normally achieving children in classroom academic and laboratory contexts. Child Development, 64 (2), 556–571. Berk, L.E. & Potts, M.K. (1991). Development and functional significance of private speech among attention-deficit hyperactivity disordered and normal boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19 (3), 357–377. Bessell, A.G. (2001). Children surviving cancer: Psychosocial adjustment, quality of life, and school experiences. Exceptional Children, 67 (3), 345–359.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

193

Bevan-Brown, J. (1999). Special abilities: A Maori perspective, implications for catering for gifted children from minority cultures. Gifted Education International, 14 (1), 86–96. Bevan-Brown, J. (2004). Gifted and talented Maori learners. In D. McAlpine and R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives. (2nd ed.) Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press, pp. 171–197. Bevill, A.R. & Gast, D.L. (1998). Social safety for young children: A review of the literature on safety skills instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18 (4), 222–234. Bibou-Nakou, I., Kiosseoglou, G. & Stogiannidou, A. (2000). Elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding school behavior problems: Implications for school psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 37 (2), 123–134. Blankemeyer, M., Flannery, D.J. & Vazsonyi, A.T. (2002). The role of aggression and social competence in children’s perceptions of the child–teacher relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (3), 293–304. Blodgett, H. (1971). Mentally retarded children: What parents and others should know. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J.A., Frankland, H.C., Nelson, L.L. & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70 (2), 167–184. Bogat, G.A., DeJonghe, E., Levendosky, A.A., Davidson, W.S. & von Eye, A. (2006). Trauma symptoms among infants exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (2), 109–125. Bolger, K.E. & Patterson, C.J. (2001). Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72 (2), 549–568. Bolton, R. (1987). People skills. Sydney: Simon and Schuster. Bonner, B.L., Kaufman, K.L., Harbeck, C. & Brassard, M.R. (1992). Child maltreatment. In C.E. Walker and M.C. Roberts (Eds.) Handbook of clinical child psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 967–1008. Bontempo, D.E. & D’Augelli, A.R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30 (5), 364–374. Booth, C.L. & Kelly, J.F. (1999). Child care and employment in relation to infants’ disabilities and risk factors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104 (2), 117–130. Borland, J.H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Borland, J.H. & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 164–171. Borland, J.H. & Wright, L. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and under–represented gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 587–594. Bornstein, M.H., Putnick, D.L., Suwalsky, J.T.D. & Gini, M. (2006). Maternal chronological age, prenatal and perinatal history, social support, and parenting of infants. Child Development, 77 (4), 875–892.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

194

Bibliography

Bos, H.M.W., van Balen, F. & van den Boom, D.C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child–rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (4), 755–764. Bottomley, G. (1983). Review of historical and sociological models of ‘the family’. In A. Burns, G. Bottomley and P. Jools (Eds.) The family in the modern world. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, pp. 3–18. Botuck, S. & Winsberg, B.G. (1991). Effects of respite on mothers of school age and adult children with severe disabilities. Mental Retardation, 29 (1), 43–47. Bouchey, H.A. & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self–perceptions, and math/science performance during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 673–686. Boulton, M.J. (1994). Understanding and preventing bullying in the junior school playground. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 132–159. Boulton, M.J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (2) 223–233. Boyle, M.H., Georgiades, K., Racine, Y. & Mustard, C. (2007). Neighborhood and family influences on educational attainment: Results from the Ontario child health study follow-up 2001. Child Development, 78 (1), 168–189. Bradbury, B., Jenkins, S.P. & Micklewright, J. (2001). Beyond the snapshot: A dynamic view of child poverty. In B. Bradbury, S.P. Jenkins and J. Micklewright (Eds.) The dynamics of child poverty in industrialised countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–23. Braggett, E.J. (1992). Pathways for accelerated learners. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education. Braggett, E.J. (1994). Developing programs for gifted students: A total-school approach. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education. Braggett, E.J. (1998). Gifted and talented children. In A. Ashman and J. Elkins (Eds.) Educating children with special needs. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Prentice Hall, pp. 229–281. Brendgen, M., Dionne, G., Girard, A., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F. & Pérusse, D. (2005). Examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old twins. Child Development, 76 (4), 930–946. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B. & Vitaro, F. (2006). Verbal abuse by the teacher and child adjustment from kindergarten through grade 6. Pediatrics, 117 (5), 1585–1598. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W.M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2007). Verbal abuse by the teacher during childhood and academic, behavioral, and emotional adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 26–38. Brennan, P.A., Hammen, C., Andersen, M.J., Bor, W., Najman, J.M. & Williams, G.M. (2000). Chronicity, severity, and timing of maternal depressive symptoms: Relationships with child outcomes at age 5. Developmental Psychology, 36 (6), 759–766. Briggs, F. (1993). Why my child? Supporting the families of victims of child sexual abuse. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

195

Briggs, F. & McVeity, M. (2000). Teaching children to protect themselves. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Bright, R.W. & Wright, J.M.C. (1986). Community-based services: The impact on mothers of children with disabilities. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 12 (4), 223–228. Bromberg, D.S. & Johnson, B.T. (2001). Sexual interest in children, child sexual abuse, and psychological sequelae for children. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (4), 343–355. Brown, J.V., Bakeman, R., Coles, C.D., Platzman, K.A. & Lynch, M.E. (2004). Prenatal cocaine exposure: A comparison of 2-year-old children in parental and nonparental care. Child Development, 74 (4), 1282–1295. Brown, S.A., Arnold, D.H., Dobbs, J. & Doctoroff, G.L. (2007). Parenting predictors of relational aggression among Puerto Rican and European American school-age children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (1), 147–159. Brown, W.H., Odom, S.L., Li, S. & Zercher, C. (1999). Ecobehavioral assessment in early childhood programs: A portrait of preschool inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 33 (3), 138–153. Brownell, M.T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N. & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 169–185. Bruder, M.B. (1995). The challenge of pediatric AIDS: A framework for early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15 (1), 83–99. Bruder, M.B. (2000). Family–centered early intervention: Clarifying our values for the new millennium. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 (2), 105–115. Buehler, C., Lange, G. & Franck, K.L. (2007). Adolescents’ cognitive and emotional responses to marital hostility. Child Development, 78 (3), 775–789. Bugental, D.B. & Happaney, K. (2004). Predicting infant maltreatment in low-income families: The interactive effects of maternal attributions and child status at birth. Developmental Psychology, 40 (2), 234–243. Buhs, E.S., Ladd, G.W. & Herald, S.L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 1–13. Bukowski, W.M. (2003). What does it mean to say that aggressive children are competent or incompetent? Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 49 (3), 390–400. Bukowski, W.M. & Sippola, L.K. (2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 355–377. Burack, J.A., Flanagan, T., Peled, T., Sutton, H.M., Zygmuntowicz, C. & Manly, J.T. (2006). Social perspective-taking skills in maltreated children and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 42 (2), 207–217. Burchinal, M.R. & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (4), 401–426. Burchinal, M.R., Roberts, J.E., Nabors, L.A. & Bryant, D.M. (1996). Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language development. Child Development, 67 (2), 606–620.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

196

Bibliography

Burchinal, M.R., Roberts, J.E., Riggins, R. Jr, Zeisel, S.A., Neebe, E. & Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71 (2), 339–357. Burns, A. & Goodnow, J. (1985). Children and families in Australia. (2nd ed.) Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks and A.H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 649–668. Camodeca, M. & Goossens, F.A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and sadness in bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (2), 186–197. Campbell, S.B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 (1), 113–149. Campbell, S.B. & Ewing, L.J. (1990). Follow-up of hard-to-manage preschoolers: Adjustment at age 9 and predictors of continuing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31 (6), 871–889. Campbell, S.B., March, C.L., Pierce, E.W., Ewing, L.J. & Szumowski, E.K. (1991a). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Family context and the stability of externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19 (3), 301–318. Campbell, S.B., Pierce, E.W., March, C.L. & Ewing, L.J. (1991b). Noncompliant behavior, overactivity, and family stress as predictors of negative maternal control with preschool children. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 175–190. Campbell, S.B., Shaw, D.S. & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12 (3), 467–488. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 821–832. Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P. & Malone, P.S. (2006). Teachers’ self–efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44 (6), 473–490. Carey, M. (1999). Escaping the effects of violence: Therapeutic gatherings with mothers and their children. In A. Morgan (Ed.) Once upon a time… Narrative therapy with children and their families. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications, pp. 109–124. Carey, M. & Russell, S. (2003). Re–authoring: Some answers to commonly asked questions. The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 3, 60–71. Carrey, N.J., Butter, H.J., Persinger, M.A. & Bialik, R.J. (1995). Physiological and cognitive correlates of child abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34 (8), 1067–1075. Carrington, N.G. & Bailey, S.B. (2000). How do preservice teachers view gifted students?: Evidence from a NSW study. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9 (1), 18–22. Casas, J.F., Weigel, S.M., Crick, N.R., Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Yeh, E.A.J. & Huddleston-Casas, C.A. (2006). Early parenting and children’s relational and


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

197

physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (3), 209–227. Casey, J.P. & Quisenberry, N.L. (1976). A review of the research related to giftedness in early childhood education. In J. Gibson and P. Chennells (Eds.) Gifted children: Looking to their future. London: Latimer, pp. 88–113. Castro, C.C., Bryant, D.M., Peisner-Feinberg, E.S. & Skinner, M.L. (2004). Parent involvement in Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 413–430. Cattley, G. (2004). The impact of teacher–parent–peer support on students’ wellbeing and adjustment to the middle years of schooling. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 11 (4), 269–282. Chan, A. (2006). ‘The teachers said my child is different’. New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 8 (1), 34–38. Chan, L.K.S. (1988). The perceived competence of intellectually talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (3), 310–314. Chandler, P.A. (1994). A place for me: Including children with special needs in early care and education settings. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Chang, L. (2004). The role of classroom norms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40 (5), 691–702. Chen, X., Dong, Q. & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21 (4), 855–873. Cheng, H., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T.G., Golding, J. & the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) Study Team (2006). Factors moderating children’s adjustment to parental separation: Findings from a community study in England. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (2), 230–241. Chitwood, D.G. (1986). Guiding parents seeking testing. Roeper Review, 8 (3), 177–179. Christenson, S.L. (2004). The family–school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33 (1), 83–104. Chronis, A.M., Lahey, B.B., Pelham, W.E. Jr, Williams, S.H., Baumann, B.L., Kipp, H., Jones, H.A. & Rathouz, P.J. (2007). Maternal depression and early positive parenting predict future conduct problems in children with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 43 (1), 70–82. Chyriwsky, M. & Kennard, R (1997). Attitudes to able children: A survey of mathematics teachers in English secondary schools. High Ability Studies, 8 (1), 47–59. Ciha, T.E., Harris, R., Hoffman, C. & Potter, M.W. (1974). Parents as identifiers of giftedness, ignored but accurate. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18 (3), 191–195. Cillessen, A.H.N. & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75 (1), 147–163. Clare, L., Garnier, H. & Gallimore, R. (1998). Parents’ developmental expectations and child characteristics: Longitudinal study of children with developmental delays and their families. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103 (2), 117–129.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

198

Bibliography

Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Clark, C., Prior, M. & Kinsella, G. (2002). The relationship between executive function abilities, adaptive behaviour, and academic achievement in children with externalizing behaviour problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (6), 785–796. Clarke-Stewart, A., Vandell, D.L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M. & McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (1), 52–86. Clay, D.L. (2007). Culturally competent intervention in schools for children with physical health problems. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (4), 389–396. Cleveland, H.H., Wiebe, R.P., van den Oord, E.J.C.G. & Rowe, D.C. (2000). Behavior problems among children from different family structures: The influence of genetic self-selection. Child Development, 71 (3), 733–751. Coie, J.D., Cillessen, A.H.N., Dodge, K.A., Hubbard, J.A., Schwartz, D., Lemerise, E.A. & Bateman, H. (1999). It takes two to fight: A test of relational factors and a method for assessing aggressive dyads. Developmental Psychology, 35 (5), 1179–1188. Colangelo, N. (2003). Counseling gifted students. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 373–387. Colangelo, N. & Assouline, S.G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 595–607. Colangelo, N. & Brower, P. (1987). Labelling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (2), 75–78. Colangelo, N. & Dettman, D.F. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children, 50 (1), 20–27. Coldwell, J., Pike, A. & Dunn, J. (2006). Household chaos – links with parenting and child behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (11), 1116–1122. Cole–Detke, H. & Kobak, R. (1998). The effects of multiple abuse in interpersonal relationships: An attachment perspective. In B.B.R. Rossman & M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 189–205. Coleman, J.M. & Fults, B.A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26 (3), 116–120. Coleman, L.J. & Cross, T.L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (4), 41–56. Coley, R.L. & Hernandez, D.C. (2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42 (6), 1041–1056. Collishaw, S., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T.G., Golding, J. & the ALSPAC Study Team (2007). Maternal childhood abuse and offspring adjustment over time. Development and Psycho-pathology, 19 (2), 367–383. Compas, B.E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101 (3), 393–403. Coolahan, K., McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J. & Grim, S. (2002). Validation of a multidimensional assessment of parenting styles for low-income African-American


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

199

families with preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (3), 356–373. Cooper, P. & Upton, G. (1991). Controlling the urge to control: An ecosystemic approach to problem behaviour in schools. Support for Learning, 6 (1), 22–26. Coots, J.J. (1998). Family resources and parent participation in schooling activities for their children with developmental delays. The Journal of Special Education, 31 (4), 498–520. Corrigan, S.Z. (1994). For the sake of the children. Gifted Child Today, 17 (2) 22–23; 30; 41. Côté, S.M., Vaillancourt, T., Barker, E.D., Nagin, D. & Tremblay, R.E. (2007). The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: Predictors of continuiry and change during childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 37–55. Côté, S.M., Vaillancourt, T., LeBlanc, J.C., Nagin, D.S. & Tremblay, R.E. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre-adolescence: A nation wide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (1), 68–82. Coyl, D.D., Roggman, L.A. & Newland, L.A. (2002). Stress, maternal depression, and negative mother–infant interactions in relation to infant attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23 (1–2), 145–163. Cramond, B. & Martin, C.E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (1), 15–19. Craven, R.G. & Marsh, H.W. (1997). Threats to gifted and talented students’ selfconcepts in the big pond: Research results and educational implications. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6 (2), 7–17. Creel, C.S. & Karnes, F.A. (1988). Parental expectancies and young gifted children. Roeper Review, 11 (1), 48–50. Crick, N.R. & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social– psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66 (3), 710–722. Crick, N.R., Grotpeter, J.K. & Bigbee, M.A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73 (4), 1134–1142. Crick, N.R., Nelson, D.A., Morales, J.R., Cullerton–Sen, C., Casas, J.F. & Hickman, S.E. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence: I hurt you through the grapevine. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 196–214. Criss, M.M., Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A. & Lapp, A.L. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and children’s externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73 (4), 1220–1237. Crockenberg, S. & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in 2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of child defiance, compliance, and self-assertion. Developmental Psychology, 26 (6), 961–971. Cross, T.L., Coleman, L.J. & Stewart, R.A. (1992). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16 (1), 37–40. Cross, T.L., Coleman, L.J. & Terhaar–Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15 (1), 44–55.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

200

Bibliography

Cummings, E.M. (1998). Stress and coping approaches and research: The impact of marital conflict on children. In B.B.R. Rossman and M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research, and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 31–50. Cummings, E.M., Goeke-Morey, M.C. & Papp, L.M. (2003). Children’s responses to everyday marital conflict tactics in the home. Child Development, 74 (6), 1918–1929. Cummings, E.M., Schermerhorn, A.C., Davies, P.T., Goeke–Morey, M.C. & Cummings, J.S. (2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Development, 77 (1), 132–152. Cunningham, M.M. & Wodrich, D.L. (2006). The effect of sharing health information on teachers’ production of classroom accommodations. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (5), 553–564. Currie, C.L. (2006). Animal cruelty to children exposed to domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (4), 425–433. Daka–Mulwanda, V., Thornburg, K.R. & Klein, T. (1995). Collaboration of services for children and families: A synthesis of recent research and recommendations. Family Relations, 44 (2), 219–223. Dallaire, D.H. & Weinraub, M. (2005). The stability of parenting behaviors over the first 6 years of life. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 201–219. Daniels, D.H. & Shumow, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23 (5), 495–526. Davidson, P.W. & Myers, G.J. (2007). Environmental toxins. In M.L. Batshaw, L. Pellegrino & N.J. Roizen (Eds.) Children with disabilities. (6th ed.) Sydney: Elsevier, pp. 63–72. Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Davis, T.E. & Osborn, C.J. (2000). The solution-focused school counselor: Shaping professional practice. New York: Brunner–Routledge. Davis–Kean, P.E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19 (2), 294–304. de Castro, B.O., Veerman, J.W., Koops, W., Bosch, J.D. & Monshouwer, H.J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73 (3), 916–934. De Civita, M., Pagani, L., Vitaro, F. & Tremblay, R.E. (2004). The role of maternal educational aspirations in mediating the risk of income source on academic failure in children from persistently poor families. Children and Youth Services Review, 26 (8), 749–769. De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (2002). Interviewing for solutions. (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson. de Kruif, R.E.L., McWilliam, R.A., Ridley, S.M. & Wakely, M.B. (2000). Classification of teachers’ interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 247–268.


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

Bibliography

201

de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton. de Shazer, S., Berg, I.K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W. & Weiner– Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25 (2), 207–222. Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S. & Weiss, H.B. (2006a). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy: Associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (4), 653–664. Dearing, E., McCartney, K. & Taylor, B.A. (2006b). Within-child associations between family income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 42 (2), 237–252. Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42 (5), 565–579. Deater-Deckard, K. & Dodge, K.A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8 (3), 161–175. Deci, E.L., Driver, R.E., Hotchkiss, L., Robbins, R.J. & Wilson, I.M. (1993). The relations of mothers’ controlling vocalizations to children’s intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 151–162. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), 627–668. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), 1–27. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self–determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G. & Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self–determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 325–346. Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J. & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 71–90. Delisle, J.R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth. New York: Longman. Demaray, M.K. & Malecki, C.K. (2002). The relationship between perceived social support and maladjustment for students at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (3), 305–316. Demaray, M.K. & Malecki, C.K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 471–489. Demaray, M.K., Malecki, C.K., Davidson, L.M., Hodgson, K.K. & Rebus, J. (2005). The relationship between social support and student adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (7), 691–706. Denham, S.A., Caverly, S., Schmidt, M., Blair, K., DeMulder, E., Caal, S., Hamada, H. & Mason, T. (2002). Preschool understanding of emotions: Contributions to


15/1/08 11:47:14 AM

202

Bibliography

classroom anger and aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (7), 901–916. Dennis, R.E. & Giangreco, M.F. (1996). Creating conversation: Reflections on cultural sensitivity in family interviewing. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 103–116. Dennis, T., Bendersky, M., Ramsay, D. & Lewis, M. (2006). Reactivity and regulation in children prenatally exposed to cocaine. Developmental Psychology, 42 (4), 688–697. Derman-Sparks, L. & the A.B.C. Task Force (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Potvin, P. & Leclerc, D. (1999). Patterns of home and school partnership for general and special education students at secondary level. Exceptional Children, 65 (4), 496–506. Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turcotte, D. & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill Journal of Education, 32 (3), 191–207. Deynoot-Schaub, M.G. & Riksen–Walraven, J.M. (2006). Peer interaction in child care centres at 15 and 23 months: Stability and links with children’s socio–emotional adjustment. Infant Behavior and Development, 29 (2), 276–288. Diaz, R.M. & Berk, L.E. (1995). A Vygotskian critique of self-instructional training. Development and Psychopathology, 7 (2), 369–392. Diener, M.L., Nievar, M.A. & Wright, C. (2003). Attachment security among mothers and their young children living in poverty: Associations with maternal, child, and contextual factors. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 49 (2), 154–182. Dinnebeil, L.A., Hale, L. & Rule, S. (1996). A qualitative analysis of parents’ and service coordinators’ descriptions of variables that influence collaborative relationships. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16 (3), 322–347. Dinnebeil, L.A., Hale, L. & Rule, S. (1999). Early intervention program practices that support collaboration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (4), 225–235. Dionne, G., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., Laplante, D. & Pérusse, D. (2003). Physical aggression and expressive vocabulary in 19-month-old twins. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 261–273. Dix, J. & Schafer, S. (1996). From paradox to performance: Practical strategies for identifying and teaching GT/LD students. Gifted Child Today, 19 (1), 22–24; 28–29. Dixon, L., Browne, K. & Hamilton–Giachritsis, C. (2005a). Risk factors of parents abused as children: A mediational analysis of the inter-generational continuity of child maltreatment (Part I). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (1), 47–57. Dixon, L., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. & Browne, K. (2005b). Attributions and behaviours of parents abused as children: A mediational analysis of the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment (Part II). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (1), 58–68. Dockett, S. (2004). ‘Everyone was really happy to see me’: The importance of friendships in the return to school of children with chronic illness. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 27–32.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

203

Dodge, K.A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399. D’Onofrio, B.M., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R.E., Maes, H.H., Silberg, J. & Eaves, L.J. (2007). A children of twins study of parental divorce and offspring psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48 (7), 667–675. D’Onofrio, B.M., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R.E., Slutske, W.S., Heath, A.C., Madden, P.A. & Martin, N.G. (2006). A genetically informed study of the processes underlying the association between parental marital instability and offspring adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 42 (3), 486–499. Donovan, W.L., Leavitt, L.A. & Walsh, R.O. (2000). Maternal illusory control predicts socialization strategies and toddler compliance. Developmental Psychology, 36 (3), 402–411. Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Liederman, P.H., Roberts, D.F. & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58 (5), 1244–1257. Downer, J.T. & Pianta, R.C. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35 (1), 11–30. Drouet, D. (1993). Adolescent female bullying and sexual harassment. In D. Tattum (Ed.) Understanding and managing bullying. Oxford, UK: Heinemann Educational, pp. 173–188. Duncan, B.L., Miller, S.D. & Sparks, J.A. (2003). Interactional and solution-focused brief therapies: Evolving concepts of change. In T.L. Sexton, G.R. Weeks and M.S. Robbins (Eds.) Handbook of family therapy: The science and practice of working with families and couples. New York: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 101–123. Duncan, G.J. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71 (1), 188–196. Dunifon, R., Kalil, A. & Bajracharya, A. (2005). Maternal working conditions and child well-being in welfare-leaving families. Developmental Psychology, 41 (6), 851–859. Dunn, J. (2004). Annotation: Children’s relationships with their nonresident fathers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (4), 659–671. Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T.G. & Bridges, L. (2004). Children’s perspectives on their relationships with their nonresident fathers: Influences, outcomes and implication. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (3), 553–566. Dunst, C.J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high schools. The Journal of Special Education, 36 (3), 139–147. Dunst, C.J. & Bruder, M.B. (2002). Valued outcomes of service coordination, early intervention, and natural environments. Exceptional Children, 68 (3), 361–375. Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C. & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C. & Deal, A. (1994). Supporting and strengthening families: Volume 1: Methods, strategies, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Durrant, M. (1995). Creative strategies for school problems. Epping, NSW: Eastwood Family Therapy Centre/New York: Norton. Dwairy, M. (2004). Parenting styles and mental health of Arab gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (4), 275–286.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

204

Bibliography

Eales, C. & de Paoli, W. (1991). Early entry and advanced placement of talented students in primary and secondary schools. Gifted Education International, 7 (3), 140–144. Early, D.M. & Burchinal, M.R. (2001). Early childhood care: Relations with family characteristics and preferred care characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 (4), 475–497. Eckenrode, J., Laird, M. & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29 (1), 53–62. Edwards, E.P., Eiden, R.D., Colder, C. & Leonard, K.E. (2006). The development of aggression in 18 to 48 month old children of alcoholic parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (3), 409–423. Edwards, O.W. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the emotional and behavioral functioning of children raised by grandparents. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (5), 565–572. Egan, S.K., Monson, T.C. & Perry, D.G. (1998). Social–cognitive influences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34 (5), 996–1006. Egan, S.K. & Perry, D.G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34 (2), 299–309. Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T.L., Fabes, R.A., Losoya, S.H., Valiente, C., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A. & Shepard, S.A. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41 (1), 193–211. El-Sheikh, M., Buckhalt, J., Mize, J. & Acebo, C. (2006). Marital conflict and disruption of children’s sleep. Child Development, 77 (1), 31–43. El-Sheikh, M. & Harger, J. (2001). Appraisals of marital conflict and children’s adjustment, health, and physiological reactivity. Developmental Psychology, 37 (6), 875–885. Elliott, R. (2003). Sharing care and education: Parents’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (4), 14–21. Ellis, B.J., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., Pettit, G.S. & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74 (3), 801–821. Englund, M.M., Luckner, A.E., Whaley, G.J.L. & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 723–730. Espelage, D.L. & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365–383. Essa, E.L. & Murray, C.I. (1999). Sexual play: When should you be concerned? Childhood Education, 75 (4), 231–234. Evans, G.W. & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73 (4), 1238–1248.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

205

Evans, G.W., Maxwell, L.E. & Hart, B. (1999). Parental language and verbal responsiveness to children in crowded homes. Developmental Psychology, 35 (4), 1020–1023. Eyre, D. (1997). Able children in ordinary schools. London: David Fulton. Fagan, J. & Iglesias, A. (1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father figures, and their Head Start children: A quasi-experimental study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14 (2), 243–269. Fall, J. & Nolan, L. (1993). A paradox of exceptionalities. Gifted Child Today, 16 (1), 46–49. Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth modeling analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (1), 27–61. Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta–analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (1), 1–22. Fantuzzo, J.W., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P.A., McWayne, C., Frye, D. & Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of social–emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36 (1), 44–62. Fantuzzo, J.W., Rouse, H.L., McDermott, P.A., Sekino, Y., Childs, S. & Weiss, A. (2005). Early childhood experiences and kindergarten success: A population-based study of a large urban setting. School Psychology Review, 34 (4), 571–588. Farmer, T.W., Estell, D.B., Bishop, J.L., O’Neal, K.K. & Cairns, B.D. (2003). Rejected bullies or popular leaders?: The social relations of aggressive subtypes of rural African American early adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39 (6), 992–1004. Farver, J.M. (1996). Aggressive behavior in preschoolers’ social networks: Do birds of a feather flock together? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11 (3), 333–350. Feinstein, L. & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51 (2), 300–321. Feiring, C., Taska, L. & Lewis, M. (2002). Adjustment following sexual abuse discovery: The role of shame and attributional style. Developmental Psychology, 38 (1), 79–92. Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F.I.M., Fredriks, A.M., Vogels, T. & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2006). Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied?: A prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-related symptoms. Pediatrics, 117 (5), 1568–1574. Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youths. Educational Leadership, 46 (6), 6–11. Feldhusen, J.F., Dai, D.Y. & Clinkenbeard, P.R. (2000). Dimensions of competitive and cooperative learning among gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, (3), 328–342. Feldhusen, J.F. & Nimlos-Hippen, A.L. (1992). An exploratory study of self concepts and depression among the gifted. Gifted Education International, 8 (3), 136–138. Feldhusen, J.F., Van Winkle, L. & Ehle, D.A. (1996). Is it acceleration or simply appropriate instruction for precocious youth? Teaching Exceptional Children, 28 (3), 48–51. Feldman, M.A. (1994). Parenting education for parents with intellectual disabilities: A review of outcome studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15 (4), 299–332.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

206

Bibliography

Feldman, R. & Klein, P.S. (2003). Toddlers’ self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. Developmental Psychology, 39 (4), 680–692. Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J. & Ridder, E.M. (2005). Show me the child at seven: The consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (8), 837–849. Fergusson, D.M. & Lynskey, M.T. (1997). Physical punishment/maltreatment during childhood and adjustment in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21 (7), 617–630. Fergusson, D., Swain-Campbell, N. & Horwood, J. (2004). How does childhood economic disadvantage lead to crime? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (5), 956–966. Fergusson, D.M. & Woodward, L.J. (2000). Teenage pregnancy and female educational underachievement: A prospective study of a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (1), 147–161. Fernández, A.T., Gay, L.R., Lucky, L.F. & Gavilán, M.R. (1998). Teacher perceptions of gifted Hispanic and limited English proficiency students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21 (3), 335–351. Field, E. & Carroll, P. (2006). Effective ways to work with parents. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence–based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 209–225. Field, T. (1991). Quality infant day-care and grade school behavior and performance. Child Development, 62 (4), 863–870. Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Schanberg, S. & Kuhn, C. (2003). Depressed mothers who are ‘good interaction’ partners versus those who are withdrawn or intrusive. Infant Behavior and Development, 26 (2), 238–252. Field, T., Masi, W., Goldestein, S., Perry, S. & Parl, S. (1988). Infant day care facilitates preschool social behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3 (4), 341–359. Fineran, S. (2001). Peer sexual harassment in high school. Journal of School Social Work, 11 (2), 50–69. Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K. & Turner, H.A. (2007). Polyvictimization and trauma in a national longitudinal cohort. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 149–166. Fisch, R. & Schlanger, K. (1999). Brief therapy with intimidating cases: Changing the unchangeable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fisch, R., Weakland, J.H. & Segal, L. (1982). The tactics of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Fischer, M., Barkley, R.A., Edelbrock, C.S. & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: II. Academic, attentional and neurological status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58 (5), 580–588. Fisher, E. (1981). The effect of labeling on gifted children and their families. Roeper Review, 3 (3), 49–51. Flores, E., Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F.A. (2005). Predictors of resilience in maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children. Developmental Psychology, 41 (2), 338–351.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

207

Flouri, E. (2006). Parental interest in children’s education, children’s self-esteem and locus of control, and later educational attainment: Twenty-six year follow-up of the 1970 British birth cohort. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 51–55. Flouri, E., Buchanan, A. & Bream, V. (2002). Adolescents’ perceptions of their fathers’ involvement: Significance to school attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (5), 575–582. Ford, D.Y. (2002). Racial identity among gifted African American students. In M. Neihart, S.M. Reis, N.M. Robinson & S.M. Moon (Eds.) Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children, pp. 155–163. Ford, D.Y. (2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted education. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 506–520. Ford, D.Y. & Harris, J.J. III (2000). A framework for infusing multicultural curriculum into gifted education. Roeper Review, 23 (1), 4–10. Ford, D.Y., Howard, T.C., Harris, J.J. III & Tyson, C.A. (2000). Creating culturally responsive classrooms for gifted African American students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23 (4), 397–427. Ford, D.Y. & Trotman, M.F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested multicultural characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23 (4), 235–239. Forster, J. (2002). The reality of opportunities for gifted and talented students. In W. Vialle & J. Geake (Eds.) The gifted enigma: A collection of articles. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow, pp. 74–90. Foster, M., Berger, M. & McLean, M. (1981). Rethinking a good idea: A reassessment of parent involvement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1 (3), 55–65. Foster, M.A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F. & Franze, S. (2005). A model of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to children’s emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (1), 13–36. Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I. & Atwater, J. (1991). Perspectives on the transition from preschool to kindergarten for children with disabilities and their families. Exceptional Children, 58 (2), 136–145. Fox, A.M. & Rieder, M.J. (1993). Risks and benefits of drugs used in the management of the hyperactive child. Drug Safety, 9 (1), 38–50. Fox, H. (2003). Using therapeutic documents: A review. The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 4, 26–36. Fox, L., Vaughn, B.J., Wyatte, M.L. & Dunlap, G. (2002). ‘We can’t expect other people to understand’: Family perspectives on problem behavior. Exceptional Children, 68 (4), 437–450. Frankel, F. & Myatt, R. (1996). Self-esteem, social competence and psychopathology in boys without friends. Personality and Individual Differences, 20 (3), 401–407. Fraser, N. (2004). Parenting. In D. McAlpine and R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and talented: New Zealand perspectives. (2nd ed.) Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press, pp. 501–521.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

208

Bibliography

Frasier, M.M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted too! Educational Leadership, 46 (6), 16–18. Frasier, M.M. (1993). Issues, problems and programs in nurturing the disadvantaged and culturally different talented. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks and A.H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 685–692. Frasier, M.M. (1997). Gifted minority students: Reframing approaches to their identification and education. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 498–515. Freeman, J. (1991). Gifted children growing up. London: Cassell. Freeman, J. (1995). Review of current thinking on the development of talent. In J. Freeman, P. Span and H. Wagner (Eds.) Actualizing talent: A lifelong challenge. London: Cassell, pp. 3–19. Freeman, J. (1997). The emotional development of the highly able. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12 (4), 479–493. Freeman, J. (2000). Families: The essential context for gifts and talents. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 573–585. Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29 (4), 384–403. Freeman, J., Epston, D. & Lobovits, D. (1997). Playful approaches to serious problems: Narrative therapy with children and their families. New York: Norton. Freeman, S.F.N., Alkin, M.C. & Kasari, C.L. (1999). Satisfaction and desire for change in educational placement for children with Down Syndrome. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (3), 143–151. Frias–Armenta, M. (2002). Long-term effects of child punishment on Mexican women: A structural model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26 (4), 371–386. Frick, P.J., Cornell, A.H., Bodin, S.D., Dane, H.E., Barry, C.T. & Loney, B.R. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 246–260. Friedman, I.A. (2003). Self-efficacy and burnout in teaching: The importance of interpersonal–relations efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 6 (3), 191–215. Frieman, B.B. & Berkeley, T.R. (2002). Encouraging fathers to participate in the school experiences of young children: The teacher’s role. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29 (3), 209–213. Friend, K.B., Goodwin, M.S. & Lipsitt, L.P. (2004). Alcohol use and sudden infant death syndrome. Developmental Review, 24 (3), 235–251. Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2007). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Fujiura, G.T. (1998). Demography of family households. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103 (3), 225–235. Fujiura, G.T. & Yamaki, K. (2000). Trends in demography of childhood poverty and disability. Exceptional Children, 66 (2), 187–199. Fuller, A. (2006). A resilience-based approach to helping victims of bullying and their families. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 161–173.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

209

Fuller, B., Caspary, G., Kagan, S.L., Gauthier, C., Huang, D.S.–C., Carroll, J. & McCarthy, J. (2002). Does maternal employment influence poor children’s social development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (4), 470–497. Fylling, I. & Sandvin, J.T. (1999). The role of parents in special education: The notion of partnership revised. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14 (2), 144–157. Gagné, F. (1997). Critique of Morelock’s (1996) definitions of giftedness and talent. Roeper Review, 20 (2), 76–85. Gagné, F. & Gagnier, N. (2004). The socio-affective and academic impact of early entrance to school. Roeper Review, 26 (3), 128–138. Galil, A., Bachner, Y.G., Merrick, J., Flusser, H., Lubetzky, H., Heiman, N. & Carmel, S. (2006). Physician–parent communication as predictor of parent satisfaction with child development services. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, (3), 233–242. Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Educational reform, values, and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35 (1), 12–19. Gallagher, J.J. (1996). A critique of critiques of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (2), 234–249. Gallagher, J.J. & Gallagher, S.A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gallucci, N.T. (1988). Emotional adjustment of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (2), 273–276. Gallucci, N.T., Middleton, G. & Kline, A. (1999a). Intellectually superior children and behavior problems and competence. Roeper Review, 22 (1), 18–21. Gallucci, N.T., Middleton, G. & Kline, A. (1999b). The independence of creative potential and behavior disorders in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43 (4), 194–203. Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 11–17. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Garland, A.F. & Zigler, E. (1999). Emotional and behavioral problems among highly intellectually gifted youth. Roeper Review, 22 (1), 41–44. Gartstein, M.A. & Fagot, B.I. (2003). Parental depression, parenting and family adjustment, and child effortful control: Explaining externalizing behaviors for preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24 (2), 143–177. Gear, G.H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgement in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478–490. Geoffroy, M.-C., Côté, S.M., Borge, A.I.H., Larouche, F., Séguin, J.R. & Rutter, M. (2007). Association between nonmaternal care in the first year of life and children’s receptive language skills prior to school entry: The moderating role of socioeconomic status. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48 (5), 490–497. George, C. & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance, and aggression. Child Development, 50 (2), 306–318. Gershoff, E.T., Aber, J.L., Raver, C.C. & Lennon, M.C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with parenting and child development. Child Development, 78 (1), 70–95.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

210

Bibliography

Gest, S.D., Freeman, N.R., Domitrovich, C.E. & Welsh, J.A. (2004). Shared book reading and children’s language comprehension skills: The moderating role of parental discipline practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 319–336. Ghazvini, A.S. & Readdick, C.A. (1994). Parent-caregiver communication and quality of care in diverse child care settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9 (2), 207–222. Gibson, K. (1998). A promising approach for identifying gifted aboriginal students in Australia. Gifted Education International, 3 (1), 73–88. Gilding, M. (1997). Australian families: A comparative perspective. South Melbourne: Longman. Gilliam, W.S. & Zigler, E.F. (2000). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state– funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (4), 441–473. Gilliom, M., Shaw, D.S., Beck, J.E., Schonberg, M.A. & Lukon, J.L. (2002). Anger regulation in disadvantaged preschool boys: Strategies, antecedents, and the development of self–control. Developmental Psychology, 38 (2), 222–235. Gillman, J. & Hansen, H. (1987). Gifted education in Minnesota kindergartens. Roeper Review, 9 (4), 212–214. Ginott, H.G. (1972). Teacher and child. New York: Macmillan. Ginott, H.G., Ginott, A. & Goddard, H.W. (2003). Between parent and child. (2nd ed.) New York: Three Rivers Press. Ginsberg, G.S. & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/ extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64 (5) 1461–1474. Glanzman, M. & Blum, N. (2007). Attention deficits and hyperactivity. In M.L. Batshaw, L. Pellegrino & N.J. Roizen (Eds.) Children with disabilities. (6th ed.) Sydney: Elsevier, pp. 349–369. Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain – A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 (1), 97–116. Glidden, L.M., Valliere, V.M. & Herbert, S.L. (1988). Adopted children with mental retardation: Positive family impact. Mental Retardation, 26 (3), 119–125. Golberg, M.E., Olweus, D. & Endresen, I.M. (2007). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 441–464. Goldstein, S. (1995). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In S. Goldstein (Ed.) Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 56–78. Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney–Somers, J., Stevens, M. & Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39 (1), 20–33. Gonzalez-DeHass, A.R., Willems, P.P. & Holbein, M.F.D. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 99–123. Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13 (1), 21–43.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

211

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L. & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (5), 573–589. Goodwin, R.D., Fergusson, D.M. & Horwood, L.J. (2004). Early anxious/withdrawn behaviours predict later internalising disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (4), 874–883. Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training. New York: Plume. Gormley, W.T. Jr, Gayer, T., Phillips, D. & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41 (6), 872–884. Gottfredson, L. (2003). The science and politics of intelligence in gifted education. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 24–40. Gottfried, A.E., Fleming, J.S. & Gottfried, A.W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (1), 104–113. Gowen, J.W. & Nebrig, J.B. (2002). Enhancing early emotional development: Guiding parents of young children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Graham, S., Bellmore, A.D. & Mize, J. (2006). Peer victimization, aggression, and their co–occurrence in middle school: Pathways to adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (3), 363–378. Grant, G., Ramcharan, P., McGrath, M., Nolan, M. & Keady, J. (1998). Rewards and gratifications among family caregivers. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42 (1), 58–71. Graziano, P.A., Reavis, R.D., Keane, S.P. & Calkins, S.D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children’s early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45 (1), 3–19. Green, C. & Chee, K. (2001). Understanding ADHD: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Doubleday. Greenman, J. & Stonehouse, A. (2007). Prime times: A handbook for excellence in infant and toddler programs. (2nd ed.) St Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Grille, R. (2005). Parenting for a peaceful world. Alexandria, NSW: Longueville Media. Grolnick, W.S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C.O. & Apostoleris, N.H. (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 538–548. Grolnick, W.S., Frodi, A. & Bridges, L.J. (1984). Maternal control style and the mastery motivation of one-year-olds. Infant Mental Health Journal, 5, 72–82. Grolnick, W.S. & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s selfregulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2), 143–154. Groot, A.S., de Sonneville, L.M.J., Stins, J.F. & Boomsma, D.I. (2004). Familial influences on sustained attention and inhibition in preschoolers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (2), 306–314. Gross, M.U.M. (1997). How ability grouping turns big fish into little fish – or does it?: Of optical illusions and optimal environments. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 6 (2), 18–30.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

212

Bibliography

Gross, M.U.M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children. (2nd ed.) Routledge Falmer: London. Gross, M.U.M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29 (4), 404–429. Grossberg, I.N. & Cornell, D.G. (1988). Relationship between personality adjustment and high intelligence: Terman versus Hollingworth. Exceptional Children, 55 (3), 266–272. Guralnick, M.J. (1991). The next decade of research on the effectiveness of early intervention. Exceptional Children, 58 (2), 174–183. Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T. & Hammond, M. (1995). Parent perspectives of peer relationships and friendships in integrated and specialized programs. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99 (5), 457–476. Guralnick, M.J. & Groom, J.M. (1987). The peer relations of mildly delayed and nonhandicapped preschool children in mainstreamed playgroups. Child Development, 58 (6), 1556–1572. Gust, K. (1997). Is the literature on social and emotional needs empirically based? Gifted Child Today, 20 (3), 12–13. Gust-Brey, K. & Cross, T. (1999). An examination of the literature base on the suicidal behaviors of gifted students. Roeper Review, 22 (1), 28–35. Haboush, K.L. (2007). Working with Arab American families: Culturally competent practice for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (2), 183–198. Hackney, H. (1981). The gifted child, the family, and the school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25 (2), 51–54. Hadaway, N. & Marek–Schroer, M.F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15 (2), 73–77. Hadden, S. & Fowler, S.A. (1997). Preschool: A new beginning for children and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30 (1), 36–39. Hall, J.M. (1994). Schooling concerns of gifted children. Gifted, August, 7–10. Halle, T.G., Kurtz–Costes, B. & Mahoney, J.L. (1997). Family influences on school achievement in low-income, African American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 527–537. Hallinan, M.T. (1990). The effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Slavin’s best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 501–504. Halpern, L.F. (2004). The relations of coping and family environment to preschoolers’ problem behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25 (4), 399–421. Hamilton, C.E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy to adolescence. Child Development, 71 (3), 690–694. Hamre, B.K. & Pianta, R.C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76 (5), 949–967. Hanline, M.F. (1993). Facilitating integrated preschool service delivery for transitions for children, families and professionals. In C.A. Peck, S.L. Odom & D.D. Bricker (Eds.) Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

213

perspectives on research and implementation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 133–146. Hanline, M.F. & Halvorsen, A. (1989). Parent perceptions of the integration transition process: Overcoming artificial barriers. Exceptional Children, 55 (6), 487–492. Hanson, M.J. & Carta, J.J. (1995). Addressing the challenges of families with multiple risks. Exceptional Children, 62 (3), 201–212. Hanson, M.J., Horn, E., Sandall, S., Beckman, P., Morgan, M. Marquart, J., Barnwell, D. & Chou, H.-Y. (2001). After preschool inclusion: Children’s educational pathways over the early school years. Exceptional Children, 68 (1), 65–83. Hanson, M.J., Wolfberg, P., Zercher, C., Morgan, M., Gutierrez, S., Barnwell, D. & Beckman, P. (1998). The culture of inclusion: Recognizing diversity at multiple levels. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (1), 185–209. Harker, M. (2001). How to build solutions at meetings. In Y. Ajmal and I. Rees (Eds.) Solutions in schools. London: BT Press, pp. 30–44. Harmon, D. (2002). They won’t teach me: The voices of gifted African American innercity students. Roeper Review, 24 (2), 68–75. Harris, V.S. & McHale, S.M. (1989). Family life problems, daily caregiving activities, and the psychological well–being of mothers of mentally retarded children. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94 (3), 231–239. Harrison, M. (1993). Family law and marriage breakdown in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Harry, B. (1992). Making sense of disability: Low-income, Puerto Rican parents’ theories of the problem. Exceptional Children, 59 (1), 27–40. Harskamp. A. (2002). Working with parents who harm their children. In S. Roffey (Ed.) School behaviour and families. London: David Fulton, pp. 77–92. Hart, C.H., DeWolf, D.M. & Burts, D.C. (1992). Linkages among preschoolers’ playground behavior, outcome expectations, and parental disciplinary strategies. Early Education and Development, 3 (4), 265–283. Hart, E.L., Lahey, B.B., Loeber, R., Applegate, B. & Frick, P.J. (1995). Developmental change in attention–deficit hyperactivity in boys: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23 (6), 729–749. Hart, S. & Hodson, V.K. (2004). The compassionate classroom: Relationship based teaching and learning. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press. Harter, S. (1998). The effects of child abuse on the self-esteem. In B.B.R. Rossman & M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 147–169. Hartup, W.W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44 (2), 120–126. Hartup, W.W. & Moore, S.G. (1990). Early peer relations: Developmental significance and prognostic implications. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5 (1), 1–17. Harvey, E. (1999). Short-term and long-term effects of early parental employment on children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Developmental Psychology, 35 (2), 445–459. Haslam, D.M., Pakenham, K.I. & Smith, A. (2006). Social support and postpartum depressive symptomatology: The mediating role of maternal self-efficacy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27 (3), 276–291.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

214

Bibliography

Hastings, P.D. & Rubin, K.H. (1999). Predicting mothers’ beliefs about preschool–aged children’s social behavior: Evidence for maternal attitudes moderating child effects. Child Development, 70 (3), 722–741. Hauser–Cram, P., Sirin, S.R. & Stipek, D. (2003). When teachers’ and parents’ values differ: Teachers’ ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 813–820. Haveman, M., van Berkum, G., Reijnders, R. & Heller, T. (1997). Differences in service needs, time demands, and caregiving burden among parents of persons with mental retardation across the life cycle. Family Relations, 46 (4), 417–425. Haveman, R. & Wolfe, B. (1995). The determinants of children’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature, 33 (4), 1829–1878. Hawley, P.H. & Little, T.D. (1999). On winning some and losing some: A social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45 (2), 185–214. Hay, D.F., Payne, A. & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (1), 84–108. Hayes, A. (1998). Families and disabilities: Another facet of inclusion. In A. Ashman and J. Elkins (Eds.) Educating children with special needs. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Prentice Hall, pp. 39–66. Haynes–Seman, C. & Baumgarten, D. (1998). The victimization of young children. In B.B.R. Rossman and M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research, and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 67–86. Heinbokel, A. (1997). Acceleration through grade skipping in Germany. High Ability Studies, 8 (1), 61–77. Henning–Stout, M., James, S. & Macintosh, S. (2000). Reducing harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth in schools. School Psychology Review, 29 (2), 180–191. Hershey, M. & Oliver, E. (1988). The effects of the label gifted on students identified for special programs. Roeper Review, 11 (1), 33–34. Hertzog, N.B. & Bennett, T. (2004). In whose eyes?: Parnets’ perspectives on the learning needs of their gifted children. Roeper Review, 26 (2), 96–104. Hill, A.L., Degnan, K.A., Calkins, S.D. & Keane, S.P. (2006). Profiles of externalizing behavior problems for boys and girls across preschool: The roles of emotion regulation and inattention. Developmental Psychology, 42 (5), 913–928. Hill, J.L., Waldfogel, J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Han, W.–J. (2005). Maternal employment and child development: A fresh look using newer methods. Developmental Psychology, 41 (6), 833–850. Hill, M.S. & Jenkins, S.P. (2001). Poverty among British children: Chronic or transitory? In B. Bradbury, S.P. Jenkins and J. Micklewright (Eds.) The dynamics of child poverty in industrialised countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–195. Hill, N.E., Castellino, D.R., Lansford, J.E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E. & Pettit, G.S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75 (5), 1491–1509.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

215

Hill, N.E. & Craft, S.A. (2003). Parent–school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 74–83. Hill, N.E. & Taylor, L.C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (4), 161–164. Hinshaw, S.P. (2006). Attention–deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The search of viable treatments. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.) Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive– behavioral procedures. (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford, pp. 82–113. Hirschstein, M.K., Edstrom, L.V.S., Frey, K.S., Snell, J.L. & MacKenzie, E.P. (2007). Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial impact of the Steps to Respect program. School Psychology Review, 36 (1), 3–21. Ho, E.S.-C. & Willms, J.D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eight-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69 (2), 126–141. Hodapp, R.M., Fidler, D.J. & Smith, A.C.M. (1998a). Stress and coping in families of children with Smith–Magenis syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42 (5), 331–340. Hodapp, R.M., Freeman, S.F.N. & Kasari, C.L. (1998b). Parental educational preferences for students with mental retardation: Effects of etiology and current placement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33 (4), 342–349. Hodge, K. (2004). Issues in the identification of giftedness in young children. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Sydney: Macquarie University. Hodge, K.A. & Kemp, C.R. (2006). Recognition of giftedness in the early years of school: Perspectives of teachers, parents, and children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30 (2), 164–204. Hoffman–Plotkin, D. & Twentyman, C.T. (1984). A multimodal assessment of behavioral and cognitive deficits in abused and neglected preschoolers. Child Development, 55 (3), 794–802. Hogan, T.M.S., Myers, B.J. & Elswick, R.K. Jr (2006). Child abuse potential among mothers of substance-exposed and nonexposed infants and toddlers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (2), 145–156. Hoge, R.D. & Renzulli, J.S. (1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and selfconcept. Review of Educational Research, 63 (4), 449–465. Hong, S. & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 32–42. Hostetler, L. (1991). Collaborating in behalf of children. Young Children, 46 (2), 2–3. Howard, V.F., Williams, B.F., Port, P.D. & Lepper, C. (2001). Very young children with special needs: A formative approach for the 21st century. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and the quality of child care predict adjustment in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 292–303. Hoza, B., Waschbusch, D.A., Pelham, W.E., Molina, B.S.G. & Milich, R. (2000). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disordered and control boys’ responses to social success and failure. Child Development, 71 (2), 432–446.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

216

Bibliography

Hubbard, J.A. (2001). Emotion expression processes in children’s peer interaction: The role of peer rejection, aggression, and gender. Child Development, 72 (5), 1426–1438. Hubbs–Tait, L., Culp, A.M., Huey, E., Culp, R., Starost, H.-J. & Hare, C. (2002). Relation of Head Start attendance to children’s cognitive and social outcomes: Moderation by family risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 (4), 539–558. Huff, R.E., Houskamp, B.M., Watkins, A.V., Stanton, M. & Tavegia, B. (2005). The experiences of parents of gifted African American children: A phenomenological study. Roeper Review, 27 (4), 215–221. Hughes, D. & May, D. (1988). From child to adult: The significance of school–leaving for the families of adolescents with mental handicaps. In G. Horobin and D. May (Eds.) Living with mental handicaps: Transitions in the lives of people with mental handicaps. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 94–110. Hughes, J. & Kwok, O-M. (2007). Influence of student–teacher and parent–teacher relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 39–51. Hughes, P. & MacNaughton, G. (2002). Preparing early childhood professionals to work with parents: The challenge of diversity and dissensus. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (2), 14–20. Huijbregts, S.C.J., Séguin, J.R., Zoccolillo, M., Boivin, M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2007). Associations of maternal prenatal smoking with early childhood physical aggression, hyperactivity–impulsivity, and their co-occurrence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (2), 203–215. Hunter, S.C. & Boyle, J.M.E. (2004). Appraisal and coping strategy use in victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (1), 83–107. Huntley, J. (1999). A narrative approach to working with students who have ‘learning difficulties’. In A. Morgan (Ed.) Once upon a time… Narrative therapy with children and their families. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications, pp. 35–49. Hussong, A.M., Zucker, R.A., Wong, M.M., Fitzgerald, H.E. & Puttler, L.I. (2005). Social competence in children of alcoholic parents over time. Developmental Psychology, 41 (5), 747–759. Ingoldsby, E.M., Shaw, D.S., Winslow, E., Schonberg, M., Gilliom, M. & Criss, M.M. (2006). Neighborhood disadvantage, parent–child conflict, neighborhood peer relationships, and early antisocial behavior problem trajectories. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (3), 303–319. Ingraham, C.L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: Multicultural and cross-cultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29 (3), 320–343. Izzo, C.V., Weissberg, R.P., Kasprow, W.J. & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 817–839. Jacobs, J.C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8 (2), 140–142. Jacobson, A.L. & Engelbrecht, J. (2000). Parenting education needs and preferences of parents of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28 (2), 139–147.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

217

Jaffee, S.R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Polo-Tomas, M., Price, T.S. & Taylor, A. (2004). The limits of child effects: Evidence for genetically mediated child effects on corporal punishment but not on physical maltreatment. Developmental Psychology, 40 (6), 1047–1058. Jaffee, S.R., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A. & Taylor, A. (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development, 74 (1), 109–126. Jakubowski, P. & Lange, A. (1978). The assertive option: Your rights and responsibilities. Champaign, IL: Research Press. James, V. & Owens, L.D. (2004). Peer victimization and conflict resolution among adolescent girls in a single-sex South Australian school. International Education Journal, 5 (1), 37–49. James, V. & Owens, L.D. (2005). ‘They turned around like I wasn’t there’: An analysis of teenage girls’ letters about their peer conflicts. School Psychology International, 26 (1), 71–88. Janos, P.M. (1987). A fifty-year follow-up of Terman’s youngest college students and IQmatched agemates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (2), 55–58. Janos, P.M. & Robinson, N.M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F.D. Horowitz and M. O’Brien (Eds.) The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 149–196. Jenkins, J.M., Shapka, J.D. & Sorenson, A.M. (2006). Teenage mothers’ anger over twelve years: Partner conflict, partner transitions and children’s anger. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (8), 775–782. Jenkins, J., Simpson, A., Dunn, J., Rasbash, J. & O’Connor, T.G. (2005). Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development, 76 (1), 24–39. Jennings, K.D. & Abrew, A.J. (2004). Self-efficacy in 18-month-old toddlers of depressed and nondepressed mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25 (2), 133–147. Jodl, K.M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J.S. & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72 (4), 1247–1265. Johnson, C., Ironsmith, M., Snow, C.W. & Poteat, G.M. (2000). Peer acceptance and social adjustment in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27 (4), 207–212. Johnson, L.J., Karnes, M.B. & Carr, V.W. (1997). Providing services to children with gifts and disabilities: A critical need. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 516–527. Johnson, W., McGue, M. & Iacono, W.G. (2005). Disruptive behavior and school grades: Genetic and environmental relations in 11-year-olds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 391–405. Jones, V.F. & Jones, L.S. (2004). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems. (7th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

218

Bibliography

Jordan, N.H. (1993). Sexual abuse prevention programs in early childhood education: A caveat. Young Children, 48 (6), 76–79. Jordan, R. (2004). Meeting the needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders in the early years. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (3), 1–7. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A. & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 349–359. Kaiser, A.P., Hancock, T.B., Cai, X., Foster, E.M. & Hester, P.P. (2000). Parent-reported behavioral problems and language delays in boys and girls enrolled in Head Start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 26 (1), 26–41. Kanevsky, L. & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce: Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26 (1), 20–28. Karatekin, C. (2004). A test of integrity of the components of Baddeley’s model of working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (5), 912–926. Karnes, M.B. (1979). Young handicapped children can be gifted and talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2 (3), 157–172. Kasahara, M. & Turnbull, A.P. (2005). Meaning of family–professional partnerships: Japanese mothers’ perspectives. Exceptional Children, 71 (3), 249–265. Katsurada, E. & Sugawara, A.I. (1998). The relationship between hostile attributional bias and aggressive behavior in preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (4), 623–636. Katz, L.F. & Woodin, E.M. (2002). Hostility, hostile detachment, and conflict engagement in marriages: Effects on child and family functioning. Child Development, 73 (2), 636–652. Keith, T.Z., Keith, P.B., Quirk, K.J., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S. & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 36 (5), 335–363. Kerr, B., Colangelo, N. & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes towards their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (2), 245–247. Keyser, J. (2006). From parents to partners: Building a family-centered early childhood program. St Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Kilgore, K., Snyder, J. & Lentz, C. (2000). The contribution of parental discipline, parenting monitoring, and school risk to early-onset conduct problems in AfricanAmerican boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 36 (6), 835–845. Kim, J. & Cicchetti, D. (2004). A longitudinal study of child maltreatment, mother– child relationship quality and maladjustment: The role of self-esteem and social competence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32 (4), 341–354. Kim, J. & Cicchetti, D. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of self-system processes and depressive symptoms among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Development, 77 (3), 624–639. Kim, J.E., Hetherington, E.M. & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70 (5), 1209–1230.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

219

Kim, J.-M. & Mahoney, G. (2004). The effects of mother’s style of interaction on children’s engagement: Implications for using responsive interventions with parents. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24 (1), 31–38. Kim, J.-M. & Mahoney, G. (2005). The effects of relationship focused intervention on Korean parents and their young children with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26 (2), 117–130. Kitzmann, K.M. (2000). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family interactions and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 36 (1), 3–13. Kliebenstein, M.A. & Broome, M.E. (2000). School re-entry for the child with chronic illness: Parent and school personnel perceptions. Pediatric Nursing, 26 (6), 579–582. Klimes–Dougan, B. & Kistner, J. (1990). Physically abused preschoolers’ responses to peers’ distress. Developmental Psychology, 26 (4), 599–602. Knoche, L., Peterson, C.A., Edwards, C.P. & Jeon, H.-J. (2006). Child care for children with and without disabilities: The provider, observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21 (1), 93–109. Ko, S.F. & Cosden, M.A. (2001). Do elementary school-based child abuse prevention programs work?: A high school follow-up. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (1), 57–66. Kochanska, G., Coy, K.C. & Murray, K.T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72 (4), 1091–1111. Kochenderfer, B.J. & Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67 (4), 1305–1317. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization: Relations to children’s maladjustment. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 25–48. Koenig, A.L., Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F.A. (2000). Child compliance/non-compliance and maternal contributors to internalization in maltreating and nonmaltreating dyads. Child Development, 71 (4), 1018–1032. Kohl, G.O., Lengua, L.J., McMahon, R.J. & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (6), 501–523. Kokkinos, C.M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (1), 229–244. Kolloff, P.B. & Moore, A.D. (1989). Effects of summer programs on the self-concepts of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12 (4), 268–276. Kopecky, H., Chang, H.T., Klorman, R., Thatcher, J.E. & Borgstedt, A.D. (2005). Performance and private speech of children with attention–deficit/hyperactivity disorder while taking the tower of Hanoi test: Effects of depth search, diagnostic subtype, and methlyphenidate. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (5), 625–638. Koren-Karie, N., Oppenheim, D., Smadar, D., Sher, E. & Etzion-Carasso, A. (2002). Mothers’ insightfulness regarding their infants’ internal experience: Relations with maternal sensitivity and infant attachment. Developmental Psychology, 38 (4), 534–542.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

220

Bibliography

Kornhaber, A. (2002). The grandparent guide: The definitive guide to coping with the challenges of modern grandparenting. Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books. Kowalski, K. (1990). The girl with the know–how: Finding solutions to a school problem. Family Therapy Case Studies, 5 (1), 3–14. Kral, R. & Kowalski, K. (1989). After the miracle: The second stage in solution focused brief therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 8 (2), 73–76. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1982). Research synthesis on ability grouping. Educational Leadership, 39 (8), 619–621. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1984). Synthesis of research on effects of accelerated instruction. Educational Leadership, 42 (2), 84–89. Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1992). Meta–analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 73–77. Kunkel, M.A., Chapa, B., Patterson, G. & Walling, D.D. (1995). The experience of giftedness: A concept map. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (3), 126–134. La Paro, K.M. & Pianta, R.C. (2000). Predicting children’s competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70 (4), 443–484. Ladd, G.W., Birch, S.H. & Buhs, E.S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70 (6), 1373–1400. LaFontana, K.M. & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38 (5), 635–647. Lai, Y. & Ishiyama, F.I. (2004). Involvement of immigrant Chinese Canadian mothers of children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71 (1), 97–108. Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C.S., Baker, A.J.L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, B. & Peay, L. (2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start: A researchcommunity partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 (1), 35–51. Lando, B.Z. & Schneider, B.H. (1997). Intellectual contributions and mutual support among developmentally advanced children in homogeneous and heterogeneous work/discussion groups. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (2), 44–57. Lansford, J.E., Malone, P.S., Stevens, K.I., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E. & Pettit, G.S. (2006). Developmental trajectories of externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Factors underlying resilience in physically abused children. Development and Psychopathology, 18 (1) 35–55. Larner, M. & Phillips, D. (1994). Defining and valuing quality as a parent. In P. Moss and A. Pence (Eds.) Transforming nursery education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 43–60. Lavoie, F., Hébert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vézina, L. & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30 (5), 375–383. Leary, A. & Katz, L.F. (2005). Observations of aggressive children during peer provocation and with a best friend. Developmental Psychology, 41 (1), 124–134. Lee, L. (2000). Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness: What does it mean for young girls and boys? The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9 (2), 24–32. Leff, S.S., Power, T.J., Costigan, T.E. & Manz, P.H. (2003). Assessing the climate of the playground and lunchroom: Implications for bullying prevention programming. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 418–430.


15/1/08 11:47:15 AM

Bibliography

221

Leff, S.S., Power, T.J., Manz, P.H., Costigan, T.E. & Nabors, L.A. (2001). School-based aggression prevention programs for young children: Current status and implications for violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 30 (3), 344–362. Lehman, E.B. & Erdwins, C.J. (1981). The social and emotional adjustment of young, intellectually-gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25 (3), 134–137. Lempers, J.D., Clark-Lempers, D. & Simons, R.L. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60 (1), 25–39. Lengua, L.J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regulation, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24 (5), 595–618. Letcher, P., Toumbourou, J., Sanson, A., Prior, M., Smart, D. & Oberklaid, F. (2004). Parenting style as a moderator of the effect of temperament on adolescent externalising and internalising behaviour problems. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 20 (1), 5–34. Leung, P.W.L. & Kwan, K.S.F. (1998). Parenting styles, motivational orientations, and self-perceived academic competence: A mediational model. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 44 (1), 1–19. Levy, F. (1993). Side effects of stimulant use. Journal of Paediatric Child Health, 29, 250–254. Lewis, M., Feiring, C. & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Development, 71 (3), 707–720. Lewis, R.B. & Doorlag, D.H. (2003). Teaching special education students in general education. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lewis, R. & Frydenberg, E. (2002). Concomitants of failure to cope: What we should teach adolescents about coping. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (3), 419–431. Lin, S.–L. (2000). Coping and adaptation in families of children with cerebral palsy. Exceptional Children, 66 (2), 201–218. Lindquist, B., Molnar, A. & Brauchmann, L. (1987). Working with school related problems without going to school: Considerations for systemic practice. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 6 (4), 44–50. Lindsay, G. & Dockrell, J. (2000). The behaviour and self-esteem of children with specific speech and language difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (4), 583–601. Little, T.D., Brauner, J., Jones, S.M., Nock, M.K. & Hawley, P.H. (2003). Rethinking aggression: A typological examination of the functions of aggression. Merrill– Palmer Quarterly, 49 (3), 343–369. Llewellyn, G. (1990). People with intellectual disability as parents: Perspectives from the professional literature. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16 (4), 369–380. Llewellyn, G. (1994). Generic family support services: Are parents with learning disability catered for? Mental Handicap Research, 7 (1), 64–77. Llewellyn, G. & Brigden, D. (1995). Factors affecting service provision to parents with intellectual disability: An exploratory study. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20 (2), 97–112. Lochman, J.E., Powell, N.R., Whidby, J.M. & FitzGerald, D.P. (2006). Aggressive children: Cognitive–behavioral assessment and treatment. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.)


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

222

Bibliography

Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive–behavioral procedures. (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford, pp. 33–81. LoCicero, K.A. & Ashby, J.S. (2000). Multidimensional perfectionism in middle school age gifted students: A comparison to peers from the general cohort. Roeper Review, 22 (3), 182–185. Loeber, R. & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410. Lonigan, C.J., Bloomfield, B.G., Anthony, J.L., Bacon, K.D., Phillips, B.M. & Samwel, C.S. (1999). Relations among emergent literacy skills, behavior problems, and social competence in preschool children from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (1), 40–53. López, E.E., Olaizola, J.H., Ferrer, B.M. & Ochoa, G.M. (2006). Aggressive and nonaggressive rejected students: An analysis of their differences. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (3), 387–400. Louis, B. & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (1), 27–31. Love, J.M., Harrison, L., Sagi–Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, M.H., Ross, C., Ungerer, J.A., Raikes, H., Brady-Smith, C., Boller, K., Brooks-Gunn, J., Constantine, J., Kisker, E.E., Paulsell, D. & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2003). Child care quality matters: How conclusions may vary with context. Child Development, 74 (4), 1021–1033. Loveland, J.M., Lounsbury, J.W. & Welsh, D. (2007). The validity of physical aggression in predicting adolescent academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (1), 167–176. Lundy, B.L., Jones, N.A., Field, T., Nearing, G., Davalos, M., Pietro, P.A., Schanberg, S. & Kuhn, C. (1999). Prenatal depression effects on neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 22 (1), 119–129. Luster, T., Lekskul, K. & Oh, S.M. (2004). Predictors of academic motivation in first grade among children born to low-income adolescent mothers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 337–353. Lusterman, D. (1985). An ecosystemic approach to family–school problems. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 13 (1), 22–30. Luthar, S.S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71 (3), 543–562. Luthar, S.S. & Sexton, C.C. (2007). Maternal drug use versus maternal depression: Vulnerability and resilience among school-age and adolescent offspring. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 205–225. Lynch, E.W. (2004). Developing cross-cultural competence. In M.J. Hanson and E.W. Lynch (Eds.) Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families. (3rd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 41–77. Lynch, E.W. & Hanson, M.J. (1996). Ensuring cultural competence in assessment. In M. McLean, D.B. Bailey Jr and M. Wolery (Eds.) Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, pp. 69–95. MacCallum, F. & Golombok, S. (2004). Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: A follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (8), 1407–1419.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

223

MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Rabiner, D. & Starnes, R. (1999). Predicting boys’ social acceptance and aggression: The role of mother–child interactions and boys’ beliefs about peers. Developmental Psychology, 35 (3), 632–639. Macmillan, R., McMorris, B.J. & Kruttschnitt, C. (2004). Linked lives: Stability and change in maternal circumstances and trajectories of antisocial behavior in children. Child Development, 75 (1), 205–230. MacNaughton, G. (2004). Children, staff and parents: Building respectful relationships in New Zealand and Australian early childhood contexts – The Australian context. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 1–7. McBride, B.A., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J. & Ho, M.-H. (2005). The mediating role of fathers’ school involvement on student achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 201–216. McBride, N. (1992). Early identification of the gifted and talented students: Where do teachers stand? Gifted Education International, 8 (1), 19–22. McCallion, P., Janicki, M.P. & Kolomer, S.R. (2004). Controlled evaluation of support groups for grandparent caregivers of children with developmental disabilities and delays. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 109 (5) 352–361. McCarthy, A., Cuskelly, M., van Kraayenoord, C.E. & Cohen, J. (2006). Predictors of stress in mothers and fathers of children with fragile X syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27 (6), 688–704. McCarthy, M. (1987). Chronic illness and hospitalization. In J.T. Neisworth and S.J. Bagnato (Eds.) The young exceptional child: Early development and education. New York: Macmillan, pp. 231–259. McClelland, M.M. & Morrison, F.J. (2003). The emergence of learning–related social skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (2), 206–224. McClelland, M.M., Morrison, F.J. & Holmes, D.L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning–related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (3), 307–329. McCluskey, K.W., Baker, P.A. & Massey, K.J. (1996). A twenty-four year longitudinal look at early entrance to kindergarten. Gifted and Talented International, 11 (2), 72–75. McConnell, D., Llewellyn, G. & Bye, R. (1997). Providing services for parents with intellectual disability: Parent needs and service constraints. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 22 (1), 5–17. McDonald, P. (1993). Family trends and structure in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. McEvoy, A. & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (3), 130–140. McFadyen-Ketchum, S.A., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A. & Pettit, G.S. (1996). Patterns of change in early childhood aggressive–disruptive behavior: Gender differences in predictions from early coercive and affectionate mother–child interactions. Child Development, 67 (5), 2417–2433. McGee, R., Partridge, F., Williams, S. & Silva, P.A. (1991). A twelve-year follow-up of preschool hyperactive children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30 (2), 224–232.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

224

Bibliography

McGee, R., Prior, M., Williams, S., Smart, D. & Sanson, A. (2002). The long-term significance of teacher-rated hyperactivity and reading ability in childhood: Findings from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (8), 1004–1017. McGlone, C. (2001). Wrapping new narratives in golden paper: Solution-focused work with pupils, teachers and parents in mainstream primary schools. In Y. Ajmal and I. Rees (Eds.) Solutions in schools. London: BT Press, pp. 122–134. McGrath, H. & Stanley, M. (2006). A comparison of two non-punitive approaches to bullying. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 189–208. McGroder, S.M. (2000). Parenting among low-income, African American single mothers with preschool-age children: Patterns, predictors, and developmental correlates. Child Development, 71 (3), 752–771. McKenzie, S. (1993). Consultation with parents of young children with disabilities regarding their perception of children’s services and service professionals and their needs associated with access and participation in generic children’s services. Unpublished Masters Dissertation: Flinders University of South Australia. McKenzie, S. (1994). Parents of young children with disabilities: Their perceptions of generic children’s services and service professionals. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19 (4), 12–17. McKenzie, S. (1996). An interpretive study of quality of life for people who have young children with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Adelaide: Flinders University of South Australia. McLeod, W. (1989). Minor miracles or logical processes?: Therapeutic interventions and techniques. Journal of Family Therapy, 11 (3), 257–280. McMillan, D.W. & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1), 6–23. McWayne, C.M., Fantuzzo, J.W. & McDermott, P.A. (2004a). Preschool competency in context: An investigation of the unique contribution of child competences to early academic success. Developmental Psychology, 40 (4), 633–645. McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H.L. & Sekino, Y. (2004b). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41 (3), 363–377. McWilliam, R.A., Lang, L., Vandiviere, P., Angell, R., Collins, L. & Underdown, G. (1995). Satisfaction and struggles: Family perceptions of early intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 19 (1), 43–60. McWilliam, R.A., Maxwell, K.L. & Sloper, K.M. (1999). Beyond ‘involvement’: Are elementary schools ready to be family-centred? School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 378–394. Maccoby, E.E. & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent– child interaction. In P.H. Mussen and E.M. Hetherington (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology vol. IV: Socialization, personality and social development. (4th ed.) New York: Wiley, pp. 1–101.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

225

Mahoney, G. & Bella, J.M. (1998). An examination of the effects of family-centered early intervention on child and family outcomes. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18 (2), 83–94. Mahoney, G., Kaiser, A., Girolametto, L., MacDonald, J., Robinson, C., Safford, P. & Spiker, D. (1999). Parent education in early intervention: A call for a renewed focus. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (3), 131–140. Maker, C.J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 41–50. Maker, C.J. & Schiever, S.W. (1989). Purpose and organization of the volume. In C.J. Maker and S.W. Schiever (Eds.) Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, pp. xv–xix. Manaster, G.J., Chan, J.C., Watt, C. & Wiehe, J. (1994). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 176–178. Mapp, S.C. (2006). The effects of sexual abuse as a child on the risk of mothers physically abusing their children: A path analysis using systems theory. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (11), 1293–1310. Marchand, J.F., Schedler, S. & Wagstaff, D.A. (2004). The role of parents’ attachment orientations, depressive symptoms, and conflict behaviors in children’s externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 449–462. Marchant, G.J., Paulson, S.E. & Rothlisberg, B.A. (2001). Relations of middle school students’ perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (6), 505–519. Marcon, R.A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic progress. School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 395–412. Marion, R.L. (1980). Communicating with parents of culturally diverse exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 46 (8), 616–623. Marsh, H.W., Chessor, D., Craven, R. & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 285–319. Marsh, H.W. & Craven, R.G. (1998). The big fish little pond effect, optimal illusions, and misinterpretations: A response to Gross (1997). The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 7 (1), 6–15. Marsh, H.W., Parada, R.H., Craven, R.G. & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological determinants, and the central role of self-concept. In C.E. Sanders and G.D. Phye (Eds.) Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 63–109. Martin, A.J., Linfoot, K. & Stephenson, J. (1999). How teachers respond to concerns about misbehavior in their classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36 (4), 347–358. Martin, J.E., Marshall, L.H. & Sale, P. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70 (3), 285–297. Martin, J.E., Van Dycke, J.L., Greene, B.A., Gardner, J.E., Christensen, W.R., Woods, L.L. & Lovett, D.L. (2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings:


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

226

Bibliography

Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children, 72 (2), 187–200. Martin, K.M. & Huebner, E.S. (2007). Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional well-being of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (2), 199–208. Mattanah, J.F. (2001). Parental psychological autonomy and children’s academic competence and behavioral adjustment in late childhood: More than just limitsetting and warmth. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 47 (3), 355–376. Maughan, A. & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children’s emotion regulation and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73 (5), 1525–1542. Merrell, K.W., Buchanan, R. & Tran, O.K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (3), 345–360. Merrell, K.W. & Wolfe, T.M. (1998). The relationship of teacher-rated social skills deficits and ADHD characteristics among kindergarten-age children. Psychology in the Schools, 35 (2), 101–109. Metzner, J.L. & Ryan, G.D. (1995). Sexual abuse perpetration. In G.P. Sholevar (Ed.) Conduct disorders in children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, pp. 119–142. Meyer, D.J. (1993). Lessons learned: Cognitive coping strategies of overlooked family members. In A.P. Turnbull, J.M. Patterson, S.K. Behr, D.L. Murphy, J.G. Marquis and M.J. Blue-Banning (Eds.) Cognitive coping, families and disability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 81–93. Meyers, S.A. (1999). Mothering in context: Ecological determinants of parent behavior. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45 (2), 332–357. Miedel, W.T. & Reynolds, A.J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37 (4), 379–402. Mikkelsen, E.J. (1997). Responding to allegations of sexual abuse in child care and early childhood education programs. Young Children, 52 (3), 47–51. Milan, S., Pinderhughes, E.E. & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2006). Family instability and child maladjustment trajectories during elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (1), 40–53. Miles, S.B. & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low-income elementary school children. Child Development, 77 (1), 103–117. Miller, A. (2003). Teachers, parents and classroom behaviour: A psychosocial approach. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Miller, A., Ferguson, E. & Moore, E. (2002). Parents’ and pupils’ causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (1), 27–40. Miller, G.E., Brehm, K. & Whitehouse, S. (1998). Reconceptualizing school-based prevention for antisocial behavior within a resiliency framework. School Psychology Review, 27 (3), 364–379.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

227

Miller-Lewis, L.R., Baghurst, P.A., Sawyer, M.G., Prior, M.R., Clark, J.J., Arney, F.M. & Carbone, J.A. (2006). Early childhood externalizing behaviour problems: Child, parenting, and family-related predictors over time. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (6), 891–906. Milner, H.R. & Ford, D.Y. (2007). Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29 (3), 166–173. Moe, V. & Smith, L. (2003). The relation of prenatal substance exposure and infant recognition memory to later cognitive competence. Infant Behavior and Development, 26 (1), 87–99. Moffitt, T.E. & the E-Risk Study Team (2002). Teen-aged mothers in contemporary Britain. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (6), 727–742. Moline, S. & Frankenberger, W. (2001). Use of stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A survey of middle and high school students’ attitudes. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (6), 569–584. Molnar, A. & de Shazer, S. (1987). Solution-focused therapy: Toward the identification of therapeutic tasks. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13 (4), 349–358. Molnar, A. & Lindquist, B. (1989). Changing problem behavior in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Moon, S.M. (2003). Counseling families. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 388–402. Moon, S.M., Kelly, K.R. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1997). Specialized counseling services for gifted youth and their families: A needs assessment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (1), 16–25. Moon, S.M., Swift, M. & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a self-contained class for fourth- and fifth-grade students with high to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 64–79. Morgan, A. (1999). Packing your bags for school. In A. Morgan (Ed.) Once upon a time… Narrative therapy with children and their families. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications, pp. 81–108. Morgan, A. (2000) What is narrative therapy?: An easy-to-read introduction. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Ecob, R. & Lewis, D. (1988). The effects of school membership on pupils’ outcomes. Research Papers in Education, 3 (1), 3–26. Moss, E., Cyr, C., Bureau, J.-F., Tarabulsy, G.M. & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2005). Stability of attachment during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41 (5), 773–783. Mullen, P.E., Martin, J.L., Anderson, J.C., Romans, S.E. & Herbison, G.P. (1996). The long-term impact of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children: A community study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20 (1), 7–21. Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, U., Kelly, L., Malos, E. & Regan, L. (2002). Children’s perspectives on domestic violence. London: SAGE. Mullins, J.B. (1987). Authentic voices from parents of exceptional children. Family Relations, 36 (1), 30–33.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

228

Bibliography

Murdock, T.B. & Bolch, M.B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (2), 159–172. Murphy, J.J. (1994). Brief therapy for school problems. School Psychology International, 15, 115–131. Murphy, J.J. (2006). Solution–focused counseling in middle and high schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Murphy, J.J. & Duncan, B.L. (1997). Brief intervention for school problems: Collaborating for practical solutions. New York: Guilford. Murray, J. & Farrington, D.P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (12), 1269–1278. Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J.M. & Crick, N.R. (2007). A short-term longitudinal study of growth of relational aggression during middle childhood: Associations with gender, friendship intimacy, and internalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 187–203. Mynard, H., Joseph, S. & Alexander, J. (2000). Peer-victimisation and posttraumatic stress in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 29 (5), 815–821. Nagin, D. & Tremblay, R.E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70 (5), 1181–1196. Nail, J.M. & Evans, J.G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20 (1), 18–21. Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (16), 2094–2100. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (1999). Chronicity of maternal depressive symptoms, maternal sensitivity, and child functioning at 36 months. Developmental Psychology, 35 (5), 1297–1310. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2000). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71 (4), 960–980. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2001a). Child care and children’s peer interaction at 24 and 36 months: The NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 72 (5), 1478–1500. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2001b). Child–care and family predictors of preschool attachment and stability from infancy. Developmental Psychology, 37 (6), 847–862. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2003a). Social functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with current classroom experiences. Child Development, 74 (6), 1639–1662. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2003b). Does quality of child care affect child outcomes at age 4 1/2? Developmental Psychology, 39 (3), 451–469.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

229

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2005). Duration and developmental timing of poverty and children’s cognitive and social development from birth through third grade. Child Development, 76 (4), 795–810. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2006). Infant–mother attachment classification: Risk and protection in relation to changing maternal caregiving quality. Developmental Psychology, 42 (1), 38–58. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network & Duncan, G.J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Development, 74 (5), 1454–1475. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22 (1) 10–17. Neihart, M. (2002). Gifted children and depression. In M. Neihart, S.M. Reis, N.M. Robinson & S.M. Moon (Eds.) Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children, pp. 93–101. Neihart, M. (2005). Achievement/affiliation conflicts in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 28 (4), 196–202. Nelson, D.A., Hart, C.H., Yang, C., Olson, J.A. & Jin, S. (2006). Aversive parenting in China: Associations with child physical and relational aggression. Child Development, 77 (3), 554–572. Nelson, J.R., Maculan, A., Roberts, M.L. & Ohlund, B.J. (2001). Sources of occupational stress for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9 (2), 123–130. Nelson, J.R., Stage, S., Duppong-Hurley, K., Synhorst, L. & Epstein, M.H. (2007). Risk factors predictive of problem behavior of children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 73 (3), 367–379. Nelson, L.G.L., Summers, J.A. & Turnbull, A.P. (2004). Boundaries in family-professional relationships: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 25 (3), 153–165. Neumeister, K.L.S. (2004a). Understanding the relation between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (3), 219–231. Neumeister, K.L.S. (2004b). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (4), 259–274. Neumeister, K.L.S., Adams, C.M., Pierce, R.L., Cassady, J.C. & Dixon, F.A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30 (4), 479–499. Neumeister, K.L.S. & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50 (3), 218–251. Newman, R.S. & Murray, B.J. (2005). How students and teachers view the seriousness of peer harassment: When is it appropriate to seek help? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 347–365.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

230

Bibliography

Nichols, M.P. & Schwartz, R.C. (1995). Family therapy: Concepts and methods. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Nicholson, A. (2006). Legal perspectives on bullying. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence–based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson, pp. 17–45. Nishina, A. (2004). A theoretical review of bullying: Can it be eliminated? In C.E. Sanders and G.D. Phye (Eds.) Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 35–62. Nix, R.L., Pinderhughes, E.E., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S. & McFadyen– Ketchum, S.A. (1999). The relation between mothers’ hostile attribution tendencies and children’s externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers’ harsh discipline. Child Development, 70 (4), 896–909. Noack, P. (2004). The family context of preadolescents’ orientations toward education: Effects of maternal orientations and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 714–722. Noble, T. (2006). Core components of a school–wide safe schools curriculum. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 67–83. Norman, A.D., Ramsay, S.G., Roberts, J.L. & Martray, C.R. (2000). Effect of social setting, self-concept, and relative age on the social status of moderately and highly gifted students. Roeper Review, 23 (1) 34–39. Norris, C. & Closs, A. (1999). Child and parent relationships with teachers in schools responsible for the education of children with serious medical conditions. British Journal of Special Education, 26 (1) 29–33. O’Brien, M., Roy, C., Jacobs, A., Macaluso, M. & Peyton, V. (1999). Conflict in the dyadic play of 3-year-old children. Early Education and Development, 10 (3), 289–313. O’Connor, T.G. (2002). Annotation: The ‘effects’ of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (5), 555–572. Odom, S.L., McConnell, S.R., McEvoy, M.A., Peterson, C., Ostrosky, M., Chandler, L.K., Spicuzza, R.J., Skellenger, A., Creighton, M. & Favazza, P.C. (1999). Relative effects of interventions supporting the social competence of young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (2), 75–91. Odom, S.L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J.M., Sandall, S. & Brown, W.M. (2006). Social acceptance and rejection of preschool children with disabilities: A mixedmethod analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (4), 807–823. Okagaki, L., Diamond, K.E., Kontos, S.J. & Hestenes, L.L. (1998). Correlates of young children’s interactions with classmates with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (1), 67–86. O’Leary, S.G., Slep, A.M.S. & Reid, M.J. (1999). A longitudinal study of mothers’ overreactive discipline and toddlers’ externalizing behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27 (5), 331–341. Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M.J. & Willis, G. (1987). Changes in the self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10 (4), 287–303.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

231

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2002). A summary of research regarding early entrance to college. Roeper Review, 24 (3), 152–157. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, M.J. & Krasny, N. (1988). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (4), 347–352. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 3–20. O’Moore, M. & Minton, S.J. (2004). Dealing with bullying in schools: A training manual for teachers, parents and other professionals. London: Paul Chapman. Osher, T.W. & Osher, D.M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11 (1), 47–60. Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70 (3), 323–367. Ostrov, J.M., Crick, N.R. & Stauffacher, K. (2006). Relational aggression in sibling and peer relationships during early childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (3), 241–253. Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Jansen, E.A., Casas, J.F. & Crick, N.R. (2004). An observational study of delivered and received aggression, gender, and social– psychological adjustment in preschool: ‘This white crayon doesn’t work…’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (2), 355–371. Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K. & Efreom, Y. (2005). Predicting parental involvement in children’s schooling within an economically disadvantaged African American sample. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (1), 101–111. Owens, L., Shute, R. & Slee, P. (2000a). ‘Guess what I just heard!’: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26 (1), 67–83. Owens, L., Shute, R. & Slee, P. (2000b). ‘I’m in and you’re out…’: Explanations for teenage girls’ indirect aggression. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 2 (1), 19–46. Owens, L., Shute, R. & Slee, P. (2005). ‘In the eye of the beholder…’: Girls’, boys’ and teachers’ perceptions of boys’ aggression to girls. International Education Journal, 5 (5), 142–151. Owens, L., Slee, P. & Shute, R. (2000c). ‘It hurts a hell of a lot…’: The effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School Psychology International, 21 (4), 359–376. Owens, L., Slee, P. & Shute, R. (2001). Victimization among teenage girls: What can be done about indirect harassment? In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 215–241. Pakenham, K.I., Sofronoff, K. & Samios, C. (2004). Finding meaning in parenting a child with Asperger syndrome: Correlates of sense making and benefit finding. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25 (3), 245–264. Palmer, D.S., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A. & Widaman, K. (1998a). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (2), 271–282.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

232

Bibliography

Palmer, D.S., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., Widaman, K. & Best, S. J. (1998b). Influences on parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103 (3), 272–287. Papadopoulos, T.C., Panayiotou, G., Spanoudis, G. & Natsopoulos, D. (2005). Evidence of poor planning in children with attention deficits. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (5), 611–623. Papero, A.L. (2005). Is early, high-quality daycare an asset for children of low–income, depressed mothers? Developmental Review, 25 (2), 181–211. Park, J. & Turnbull, A.P. (2003). Service integration in early intervention: Determining interpersonal and structural factors for its success. Infants and Young Children, 16 (1), 48–58. Park, J., Turnbull, A.P. & Turnbull, H.R. III (2002). Impacts of poverty on quality of life in families of children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68 (2), 151–170. Parke, R.D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., French, S. & Widaman, K.F. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75 (6), 1632–1656. Parker, F.L., Boak, A.Y., Griffin, K.W., Ripple, C. & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 413–425. Parker, W. (1996). Psychological adjustment in mathematically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (3), 154–161. Parker, W. & Adkins, K.K. (1995). Perfectionism and the gifted. Roeper Review, 17 (3), 173–176. Patrick, C.L. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on the development of cognitive abilities: Evidence from the field of developmental behavior genetics. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (1), 79–108. Paulson, S.E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninthgrade students’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 (2), 250–267. Paulson, S.E., Marchant, G.J. & Rothlisberg, B.A. (1998). Early adolescents’ perceptions of patterns of parenting, teaching, and school atmosphere: Implications for achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18 (1), 5–26. Paulus, P. (1984). Acceleration: More than grade skipping. Roeper Review, 7 (2), 98–100. Peisner-Feinberg, E.S. & Burchinal, M.R. (1997). Relations between preschool children’s child-care experiences and concurrent development: The cost, quality, and outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43 (3), 451–477. Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.L., Howes, C., Kagan, S.L. & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72 (5), 1534–1553. Pellegrini, A.D. (2004). Bullying during the middle school years. In C.E. Sanders and G.D. Phye (Eds.) Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 177–202. Pellegrini, A.D., Bartini, M. & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 216–224.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

233

Pelletier, J. & Brent, J.M. (2002). Parent participation in children’s school readiness: The effects of parental self–efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 34 (1), 45–60. Penney, S. & Wilgosh, L. (2000). Fostering parent–teacher relationships when children are gifted. Gifted Education International, 14 (3), 217–229. Pepler, D., Craig, W., Ziegler, S. & Charach, A. (1993). A school-based anti-bullying intervention: Preliminary evaluation. In D. Tattum (Ed.) Understanding and managing bullying. Oxford, UK: Heinemann Educational, pp. 76–91. Perry, L. (1999). Mitakuyu Oyasin – All of my relations: Exploring metaphors of connectedness. In A. Morgan (Ed.) Once upon a time: Narrative therapy with children and their families. Adelaide, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications, pp. 125–144. Peterson, J. (1993). Peeling off the elitist label: Smart politics. Gifted Child Today, 16 (2), 31–33. Peterson, J.L. & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent–child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48 (2), 295–307. Petterson, S.M. & Albers, A.B. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Development, 72 (6), 1794–1813. Pettit, G.S., Laird, R.D., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E. & Criss, M.M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior–problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72 (2), 583–598. Peyton, V., Jacobs, A., O’Brien, M. & Roy, C. (2001). Reasons for choosing child care: Associations with family factors, quality, and satisfaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 (2), 191–208. Phillips, D.A., McCartney, K. & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and children’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23 (4), 537–543. Phoenix, A. (2002). Working with diverse communities. In S. Roffey (Ed.) School behaviour and families. London: David Fulton, pp. 125–139. Piirto, J. (1999). Talented children and adults. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the shared concern method. School Psychology International, 23 (3), 307–326. Piotrkowski, C., Botsko, M. & Matthews, E. (2000). Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about children’s school readiness in a high-need community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (4), 537–558. Plomin, R. & Price, T.S. (2003). The relationship between genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 113–123. Plucker, J.A. & McIntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high-potential, middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 7–14. Pollak, S.D., Vardi, S., Bechner, A.M.P. & Curtin, J.J. (2005). Physically abused children’s regulation of attention in response to hostility. Child Development, 76 (5), 968–977. Porter, L. (1999). Behaviour management practices in child care centres. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Adelaide: University of South Australia.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

234

Bibliography

Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. (2nd ed.) Sydney: Allen and Unwin/Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Porter, L. (2006). Children are people too: A parent’s guide to young children’s behaviour. (4th ed.) Adelaide, SA: East Street Publications. Porter, L. (2007a). Student behaviour: Theory and practice for teachers. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Porter, L. (2007b). Behaviour in schools: Theory and practice for teachers. (2nd ed.) Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Porter, L. (2008). Young children’s behaviour: Practical approaches for caregivers and teachers. (3rd ed.) Sydney: Elsevier/Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Posada, G., Jacobs, A., Carbonell, O.A., Alzate, G., Bustamante, M.R. & Arenas, A. (1999). Maternal care and attachment security in ordinary and emergency contexts. Developmental Psychology, 35 (6), 1379–1388. Poulin, F. & Boivin, M. (2000). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), 233–240. Preuss, L.J. & Dubow, E.F. (2004). A comparison between intellectually gifted and typical children in their coping responses to a school and peer stressor. Roeper Review, 26 (2), 105–111. Prince, D.L. & Howard, E.M. (2002). Children and their basic needs. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (1), 27–31. Prinstein, M.J. & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49 (3), 310–342. Proctor, T.B., Black, K.N. & Feldhusen, J.F. (1986). Early admission of selected children to elementary school: A review of the research literature. Journal of Educational Research, 80 (2), 70–76. Proctor, T.B., Feldhusen, J.F. & Black, K.N. (1988). Guidelines for early admission to elementary school. Psychology in the Schools, 25 (1), 41–43. Purdie, N., Hattie, J. & Carroll, A. (2002). A review of research on interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: What works best? Review of Educational Research, 72 (1), 61–99. Purvis, K.L. & Tannock, R. (1997). Language abilities in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reading disabilities, and normal controls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25 (2), 133–144. Pyryt, M.C. (1996). IQ: Easy to bash, hard to replace. Roeper Review, 18 (4), 255–258. Qi, C.H. & Kaiser, A.P. (2003). Behavior problems of preschool children from lowincome families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23 (4), 188–216. Quas, J.A., Goodman, G.S. & Jones, D.P.H. (2003). Predictors of attributions of selfblame and internalizing behavior problems in sexually abused children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44 (5), 723–736. Rabiner, D., Coie, J.D. & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2000). Early attention problems and children’s reading achievement: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39 (7), 859–867. Raffaele, L.M. & Knoff, H.M. (1999). Improving home–school collaboration with disadvantaged families: Organizational principles, perspectives, and approaches. School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 448–466.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

235

Raggi, V.L. & Chronis, A.M. (2006). Interventions to address the academic impairment of children and adolescents with ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9 (2), 85–110. Ramey, C.T. & Ramey, S.L. (1992). Effective early intervention. Mental Retardation, 30 (6), 337–345. Ramirez, S.Z., Lepage, K.M., Kratochwill, T.R. & Duffy, J.L. (1998). Multicultural issues in school–based consultation: Conceptual and research considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 36 (4), 479–509. Raskauskas, J. & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43 (3), 564–575. Ratelle, C.F., Guay, F., Larose, S. & Senécal, C. (2004). Family correlates of trajectories of academic motivation during a school transition: A semiparametric group–based approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 743–754. Raval, V., Goldberg, S., Atkinson, L., Benoit, D., Myhal, N., Poulton, L. & Zwiers, M. (2001). Maternal attachment, maternal responsiveness and infant attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 24 (3) 281–304. Raver, C.C. (2003). Does work pay psychologically as well as economically?: The role of employment in predicting depressive symptoms and parenting among low-income families. Child Development, 74 (6), 1720–1736. Raviv, T., Kessenich, M. & Morrison, F.J. (2004). A mediational model of the association between socioeconomic status and three-year-old language abilities: The role of parenting factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (4), 528–547. Reinke, W.M. & Herman, K.C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behaviors in youth. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (5), 549–559. Reis, S.M. & McCoach, D.B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44 (3), 152–170. Renzulli, J.S. (1973). Talent potential in minority group students. Exceptional Children, 39 (6), 437–44. Rescorla, L.A., Achenbach, T.M., Ginzburg, S., Ivanova, M., Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., Bathiche, M., Bilenberg, N., Bird, H., Domuta, A., Erol, N., Fombonne, E., Fonseca, A., Frigerio, A., Kanbayashi, Y., Lambert, M.C., Liu, X., Leung, P., Minaei, A., Roussos, A., Simsek, Z., Weintraub, S., Weisz, J., Wolanczyk, T., Zubrick, S.R., Zukauskiene, R. & Verhulst, F. (2007). Consistency of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 countries. School Psychology Review, 36 (1), 91–100. Reyno, S.M. & McGrath, P.J. (2006). Predictors of parent training efficacy for child externalizing behavior problems – a meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (1), 99–111. Reynolds, A.J., Ou, S.-R. & Topitzes, J.W. (2004). Paths of effects of early childhood intervention on educational attainment and delinquency: A confirmatory analysis of Chicago Child–Parent Centers. Child Development, 75 (5), 1299–1328. Reynolds, M.A. & Holdgrafer, G. (1998). Social-communicative interactions of preschool children with developmental delays in integrated settings: An exploratory study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18 (4), 235–242. Rhodes, J. (1993). The use of solution-focused brief therapy in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 9 (1), 27–34. Rice, K.G., Ashby, J.S. & Preusser, K.J. (1996). Perfectionism, relationships with parents, and self–esteem. Individual Psychology, 52 (3), 246–260.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

236

Bibliography

Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (4), 149–154. Richert, E.S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 75–88. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Melbourne: ACER Press. Rigby, K. (1998). Gender and bullying in schools. In P.T. Slee and K. Rigby (Eds.) Children’s peer relations. London: Routledge, pp. 47–59. Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (1), 95–104. Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford, pp. 310–331. Rigby, K. (2003). Stop the bullying: A handbook for schools. (2nd ed.) Melbourne: ACER Press. Rigby, K. (2006a). What international research tells us about bullying. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 3–15. Rigby, K. (2006b). An overview of approaches to managing bully/victim problems. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 149–160. Rigby, K. & Bagshaw, D. (2006). Using educational drama and bystander training to counteract bullying. In H. McGrath and T. Noble (Eds.) Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches to bullying in Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Longman, pp. 133–145. Rimm, S.B. & Lovance, K.J. (1992a). How acceleration may prevent underachievement syndrome. Gifted Child Today, 15 (2), 9–14. Rimm, S.B. & Lovance, K.J. (1992b). The use of subject and grade skipping for the prevention and reversal of underachievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 100–105. Rimmerman, A., Kramer, R. & Levy, J.M. (1989). Who benefits most from respite care? International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 12 (1), 41–47. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. & Pianta, R.C. (1999). Patterns of family–school contact in preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 426–438. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Pianta, R.C. & Cox, M.J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 147–166. Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. & Zhang, Y. (2005). Father–school communication in preschool and kindergarten. School Psychology Review, 34 (3), 287–308. Ring, B. & Shaughnessy, M.F. (1993). The gifted label, gifted children and the aftermath. Gifted Education International, 9 (1), 33–35. Ripley, K. & Yuill, N. (2005). Patterns of language impairment and behaviours in boys excluded from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (1), 37–50. Rist, R.C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40 (3), 411–451.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

237

Rivers, S. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18 (1), 32–46. Roach, M.A., Orsmond, G.I. & Barratt, M.S. (1999). Mothers and fathers of children with Down syndrome: Parental stress and involvement in childcare. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104 (5), 422–436. Robinson, N.M., Lanzi, R.G., Weinberg, R.A., Ramey, S.L. & Ramey, C.T. (2002). Family factors associated with high academic competence in former Head Start children at third grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (4), 278–290. Robinson, N.M. & Noble, K.D. (1991). Social–emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds and H.J. Walberg (Eds.) Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Volume 4: Emerging programs. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, pp. 57–76. Robinson, N.M. & Robinson, H. (1992). The use of standardized tests with young gifted children. In P.S. Klein and A.J. Tannenbaum (Eds.) To be young and gifted. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 141–170. Rodkin, P.C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R. & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36 (1), 14–24. Rodkin, P.C. & Hodges, E.V.E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 384–400. Roedell, W.C., Jackson, N.E. & Robinson, H.B. (1980). Gifted young children. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Roeper, A. (1995). Parenting the gifted. In Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings and speeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit, pp. 144–151. Roffey, S. (2002). School behaviour and families: Frameworks for working together. London: David Fulton. Rogers, B. (2003). Behaviour recovery: Practical programs for challenging behaviour. (2nd ed.) Melbourne: ACER Press. Rogers, K.B. (2001). Grouping the gifted: Myths and realities. Gifted Education Communicator, 32 (1), 20–36. Rogers, K.B. & Kimpston, R.D. (1992). Acceleration: What we do vs. what we do not know. Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 58–61. Rogers, K.B. & Span, P. (1993). Ability grouping with gifted and talented students: Research and guidelines. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks and A.H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 585–592. Romano, E., Tremblay, R.E., Boulerice, B. & Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of childhood physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (5), 565–578. Ronis, S.T. & Borduin, C.M. (2007). Individual, family, peer and academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (2), 153–163. Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P. & Waller, E.M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40 (3), 378–387.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

238

Bibliography

Rosenberg, M.B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life. (2nd ed.) Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press. Rosenthal, D.M. & Sawyers, J.Y. (1996). Building successful home/school partnerships: Strategies for parent support and involvement. Childhood Education, 72 (4), 194–200. Rosin, P. (1996). The diverse American family. In P. Rosin, A.D. Whitehead, L.I. Tuchman, G.S. Jesien, A.L. Begun and L. Irwin (Eds.) Partnerships in family-centred care: A guide to collaborative early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 3–28. Rossman, B.B.R., Hughes, H.M. & Hanson, K.L. (1998). The victimization of schoolage children. In B.B.R. Rossman and M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research, and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 87–106. Rossman, B.B.R. & Rosenberg, M.S. (1998).The multiple victimization of children: Incidence and conceptual issues. In B.B.R. Rossman and M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research, and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 1–5. Rost, D.H. & Czeschlik, T. (1994). The psycho-social adjustment of gifted children in middle childhood. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 9 (1), 15–25. Rothbaum, F., Grauer, A. & Rubin, D.J. (1997). Becoming sexual: Differences between child and adult sexuality. Young Children, 52 (6), 22–28. Rubenstein, J.L., Howes, C. & Boyle, P. (1981). A two–year follow-up of infants in community-based day care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22 (3), 209–218. Rubie–Davies, C.M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of highand low-expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 289–306. Rubin, K.H., Burgess, K.B., Dwyer, K.M. & Hastings, P.D. (2003). Predicting preschoolers’ externalizing behaviors from toddler temperament, conflict, and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39 (1), 164–176. Runco, M.A. (1997). Is every child gifted? Roeper Review, 19 (4), 220–224. Rutter, M. (1983). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. Child Development, 54 (1), 1–29. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611. Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A.S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K.H. Nuechterlein and S. Weintraub (Eds.) Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–214. Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21 (2), 119–144. Rutter, M. & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (6), 451–475. Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66 (1), 33–38.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

Bibliography

239

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. Ryan, R.M., Stiller, J.D. & Lynch, J.H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 (2), 226–249. Ryndak, D.L., Downing, J.E., Morrison, A.P. & Williams, L.J. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17 (2), 106–118. Salend, S.J. & Taylor, L. (1993). Working with families: A cross-cultural perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 14 (5), 25–32. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A. & Lagerspetz, K. (1998). Aggression in the social relations of school-aged girls and boys. In P.T. Slee and K. Rigby (Eds.) Children’s peer relations. London: Routledge, pp. 60–75. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A. & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (3), 465–487. Sameroff, A.J. (1990). Neo-environmental perspectives on developmental theory. In R.M. Hodapp, J.A. Burack and E. Zigler (Eds.) Issues in the developmental approach to mental retardation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, . pp. 93–113. Samples, F.L. (2004). Evaluating curriculum–based intervention programs: An examination of preschool, primary, and elementary school intervention programs. In C.E. Sanders and G.D. Phye (Eds.) Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 203–227. Sanagavarapu, P. (2004). Socio–cultural matrix of raising a child with food allergies: Experience of a migrant mother. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 45–49. Sandefur, G.D. & Wells, T. (1999). Does family structure really influence educational attainment? Social Science Research, 28 (4), 331–357. Sandler, A.G. & Mistretta, L.A. (1998). Positive adaptation in parents of adults with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33 (2), 123–130. Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2002). Gifted preschoolers: Parent and teacher views on identification, early admission, and programming. Roeper Review, 24 (3), 172–177. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sayler, M.F. & Brookshire, W.K. (1993). Social, emotional, and behavioral adjustment of accelerated students, students in gifted classes, and regular students in eighth grade. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37 (4), 150–154. Schaeffer, C.M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Poduska, J. & Kellam, S. (2003). Modeling growth in boys’ aggressive behavior across elementary school: Links to later criminal involvement, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Developmental Psychology, 39 (6), 1020–1025. Schaffer, H.R. (1998). Making decisions about children: Psychological questions and answers. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Blackwell.


15/1/08 11:47:16 AM

240

Bibliography

Schiever, S.W. & Maker, C.J. (1997). Enrichment and acceleration: An overview and new directions. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 113–125. Schilling, R.F., Kirkham, M.A., Snow, W.H. & Schinke, S.P. (1986). Single mothers with handicapped children: Different from their married counterparts? Family Relations, 35 (1), 69–77. Schilling, R.F., Schinke, S.P., Blythe, B.J. & Barth, R.P. (1982). Child maltreatment and mentally retarded parents: Is there a relationship? Mental Retardation, 20 (3), 201–209. Schneider, B.H., Clegg, M.R., Byrne, B.M., Ledingham, J.E. & Crombie, G. (1989). Social relations of gifted children as a function of age and school program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1), 48–56. Scholte, R.H.J., Engles, R.C.M.E., Overbeek, G., de Kemp, R.A.T. & Haselager, G.J.T. (2007). Stability in bullying and victimization and its association with social adjustment in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (2), 217–228. Schulting, A.B., Malone, P.S. & Dodge, K.A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41 (6), 860–871. Schwartz, D., Gorman, A.H., Nakamoto, J. & Toblin, R.L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3), 425–435. Schwarz, J.C., Krolick, G. & Strickland, R.G. (1973). Effects of early day care experience on adjustment to a new environment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43 (3), 340–346. Scorgie, K., Wilgosh, L. & McDonald, L. (1998). Stress and coping in families of children with disabilities: An examination of recent literature. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 26 (1), 22–42. Scott, B.S., Atkinson, L., Minton, H.L. & Bowman, T. (1997). Psychological distress of parents of infants with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102 (2), 161–171. Scott, M.S., Deuel, L.S., Jean-Francois, B. & Urbano, R.C. (1996). Identifying cognitive gifted ethnic minority children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (3), 147–153. Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Parent–child interactions and school achievement. In B.A. Ryan, G.R. Adams, T.P. Gullotta, R.P. Weissberg and R.L. Hampton (Eds.) The family– school connection: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 75–107. Scott-Little, M.C. & Holloway, S.D. (1992). Child care providers’ reasoning about misbehaviors: Relation to classroom control strategies and professional training. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7 (4), 595–606. Scruggs, T.E. & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/ inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 59–74. Seefeldt, C., Denton, K., Galper, A. & Younoszai, T. (1999). The relation between Head Start parents’ participation in transition demonstration, education, efficacy and their children’s academic abilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14 (1), 99–109.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

241

Segal, N.L. (2000). Virtual twins: New findings on within-family environmental influences on intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3), 442–448. Seifer, R., LaGasse, L.L., Lester, B., Bauer, C.R., Shankaran, S., Bada, H.S., Wright, L.L., Smeriglio, V.L. & Liu, J. (2004). Attachment status in children prenatally exposed to cocaine and other substances. Child Development, 75 (3), 850–868. Selekman, M.D. (1997). Solution-focused therapy with children: Harnessing family strengths for systemic change. New York: Guilford. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Seligman, M. & Darling, R.B. (1997). Ordinary families; special children: A systems approach to childhood disability. (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford. Seltzer, M.M., Greenberg, J.S., Floyd, F.J., Pettee, Y. & Hong, J. (2001). Life course impacts of parenting a child with a disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106 (3), 265–286. Semann, A. (2004). Caught in the closet: The silencing of sexuality in early childhood education. Every Child, 10 (4), 20–21. Shaklee, B. (1993). Preliminary findings of the Early Assessment for Exceptional Potential project. Roeper Review, 16 (2), 105–109. Shaklee, B.D. & Viechnicki, K.J. (1995). A qualitative approach to portfolios: The early assessment for exceptional potential model. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18 (2), 156–170. Sharma, R. (2001). A study of teachers’ perceptions of gifted and talented children in early childhood settings. Unpublished Master of Education thesis. Sydney: The University of Western Sydney. Sharp, S. & Cowie, H. (1994). Empowering pupils to take positive action against bullying. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 108–131. Shaw, D.S., Bell, R.Q. & Gilliom, M. (2000). A truly early starter model of antisocial behavior revisited. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3 (3), 155–172. Shaw, D.S., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E.M. & Nagin, D.S. (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 189–200. Shaw, D.S., Winslow, E.B. & Flanagan, C. (1999). A prospective study of the effects of marital status and family relations on young children’s adjustment among African American and European American families. Child Development, 70 (3), 742–755. Shaywitz, S.E., Holahan, J.M., Freudenheim, D.A., Fletcher, J.M., Makuch, R.W. & Shaywitz, B.A. (2001). Heterogeneity within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit behaviors resembling boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45 (1), 16–23. Sheldon, K.M., Elliott, A.J., Kim, Y. & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?: Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (2), 325–339. Shelton, T.L., Barkley, R.A., Crosswait, C., Moorehouse, M., Fletcher, K., Barrett, S., Jenkins, L. & Metevia, L. (1998). Psychiatric and psychological morbidity as a function of adaptive disability in preschool children with aggressive and hyperactiveimpulsive-inattentive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26 (6), 475–494.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

242

Bibliography

Sheridan, J., Dwyer, S.B. & Sanders, M.R. (1997). Parenting and family support for children with ADHD. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22 (4), 15–23. Sheridan, S.M. (2000). Considerations of multiculturalism and diversity in behavioral consultation with parents and teachers. School Psychology Review, 29 (3), 344–353. Shields, A., Ryan, R.M. & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Narrative representations of caregivers and emotion dysregulation as predictors of maltreated children’s rejection by peers. Developmental Psychology, 37 (3), 321–337. Shiu, S. (2001). Issues in the education of students with chronic illness. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48 (3), 269–281. Shiu, S. (2004). Maintaining the thread: Including young children with chronic illness in the primary classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 33–38. Shonk, S.M. & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk for academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37 (1), 3–17. Shore, B.M. & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20 (2), 138–154. Shumow, L., Vandell, D.L. & Posner, J. (1999). Risk and resilience in the urban neighborhood: Predictors of academic performance among low-income elementary school children. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45 (2), 390–331. Shute, R., Owens, L. & Slee, P. (2002). ‘You just stare at them and give them daggers’: Nonverbal expressions of social aggression in teenage girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10 (4), 353–372. Siegle, D. & Schuler, P.A. (2000). Perfectionism differences in gifted middle school students. Roeper Review, 23 (1) 39–44. Siklos, S. & Kerns, K.A. (2007). Assessing the diagnostic experiences of a small sample of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28 (1), 9–22. Silverman, L.K. (1997). Family counseling. In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of gifted education. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 382–397. Silverman, L.K., Chitwood, D.G. & Waters, J.L. (1986). Young gifted children: Can parents identify giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6 (1), 23–38. Simon, B.S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin, 85 (627), 8–19. Singer, L.T., Eisengart, L.J., Minnes, S., Noland, J., Jey, A., Lane, C. & Min, M.O. (2005). Prenatal cocaine exposure and infant cognition. Infant Behavior and Development, 28 (4), 431–444. Singh, K., Bickley, P.G., Trivette, P., Keith, T.Z., Keith, P.B. & Anderson, E. (1995). The effects of four components of parental involvement on eighth-grade student achievement: Structural analsis of NELS–88 data. School Psychology Review, 24 (2), 299–317. Sirin, S.R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 417–453.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

243

Sklare, G.B. (2005). Brief counseling that works: A solution-focused approach for school counselors and administrators. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3), 293–336. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60 (3), 471–499. Slee, P.T. (1994a). Life at school used to be good: Victimisation and health concerns of secondary school students. Young Studies Australia, December, 20–23. Slee, P.T. (1994b). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer victimisation. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25 (2), 97–107. Slee, P.T. (1995a). Peer victimisation and its relationship to depression among Australian primary school students. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 18 (1), 57–62. Slee, P.T. (1995b). Bullying: Health concerns of Australian secondary school students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 5 (4), 215–224. Slee, P.T. (1998). Bullying amongst Australian primary school students: Some barriers to help-seeking and links with sociometric status. In P.T. Slee and K. Rigby (Eds.) Children’s peer relations. London: Routledge, pp. 205–214. Slee, P.T. & Rigby, K. (1994). Peer victimisation at school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19 (1), 3–10. Smeekens, S., Riksen-Walraven, J.M. & van Bakel, H.J.A. (2007). Multiple determinants of externalizing behavior in 5-year-olds: A longitudinal model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (3), 347–361. Smith, C.A. & Farrington, D.P. (2004). Continuities in antisocial behavior and parenting across three generations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (2), 230–247. Smith, C.L., Calkins, S.D., Keane, S.P., Anastopoulos, A.D. & Shelton, T.L. (2004). Predicting stability and change in toddler behavior problems: Contributions of maternal behavior and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 40 (1), 29–42. Smith, P.K., Cowie, H. & Sharp, S. (1994). Working directly with pupils involved in bullying situations. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 193–212. Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (1994). The problem of school bullying. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 1–19. Smith, S.W. & Daunic, A.P. (2002). Using conflict resolution and peer mediation to support positive behavior. In B. Algozzine and P. Kay (Eds.) Preventing problem behaviors: A handbook of successful prevention strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, pp. 142–161. Smith, T.B., Oliver, M.N.I. & Innocenti, M.S. (2001). Parenting stress in families of children with disabilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 (2), 257–261. Smutny, J.F., Veenker, K. & Veenker, S. (1989). Your gifted child: How to recognize and develop the special talents in your child from birth to age seven. New York: Ballantine.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

244

Bibliography

Smutny, J.F., Walker, S.Y. & Meckstroth, E.A. (1997). Teaching young gifted children in the regular classroom: Identifying, nurturing, and challenging ages 4–9. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit. Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J. & Patterson, G.R. (2005). The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school. Developmental Psychology, 41 (1), 30–41. Snyder, J., Prichard, J., Schrepferman, L., Patrick, M.R. & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Child impulsiveness-inattention, early peer experiences, and the development of early onset conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32 (6), 579–594. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W. & Ryan, R.M. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43 (3), 633–646. Sohr-Preston, S.L. & Scaramella, L.V. (2006). Implications of timing of maternal depressive symptoms for early cognitive and language development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9 (1), 65–83. Sokoly, M.M. & Dokecki, P.R. (1995). Ethical perspectives on family-centred early intervention. In J.A. Blackman (Ed.) Working with families in early intervention. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, pp. 186–198. Solomon, C.R. & Serres, F. (1999). Effects of parental verbal aggression on children’s self-esteem and school marks. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23 (4), 339–351. Solow, R. (2001). Parents’ conceptions of giftedness. Gifted Child Today, 24 (2), 14–22. Soodak, L.C., Erwin, E.J., Winton, P., Brotherson, M.J., Turnbull, A.P., Hanson, M.J. & Brault, L.M.J. (2002). Implementing inclusive early childhood education: A call for professional empowerment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22 (2), 91–102. Southern, W.T. & Jones, E.D. (1992). The real problems with academic acceleration. Gifted Child Today, 15 (2), 34–38. Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D. & Fiscus, E.D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33 (1), 29–35. Southern, W.T., Jones, E.D. & Stanley, J.C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The context and development of program options. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks and A.H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 387–410. Spence, S.H., Najman, J.M., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M.J. & Williams, G.M. (2002). Maternal anxiety and depression, poverty and marital relationship factors during early childhood as predictors of anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (4), 457–469. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 125–146. Spira, E.G. & Fischel, J.E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity on social and academic development: A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (7), 755–773.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

245

Spirito, A., Stark, L.J., Grace, N. & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Common problems and coping strategies reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20 (5), 531–544. Stainton, T. & Besser, H. (1998). The positive impact of children with an intellectual disability on the family. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 23 (1), 57–70. Stanley, G.K. & Baines, L. (2002). Celebrating mediocrity?: How schools shortchange gifted students. Roeper Review, 25 (1), 11–13. Stauffacher, K. & DeHart, G.B. (2006). Crossing social contexts: Relational aggression between siblings and friends during early and middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (3), 228–240. Stedtnitz, U. (1995). Psychosocial dimensions of talent: Some major issues. In J. Freeman, P. Span and H. Wagner (Eds.) Actualizing talent: A lifelong challenge. London: Cassell, pp. 42–55. Steele, B.F. (1986). Notes on the lasting effects of early child abuse throughout the life cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 281–291. Steelman, L.M., Assel, M.A., Swank, P.R., Smith, K.E. & Landry, S.H. (2002). Early maternal warm responsiveness as a predictor of child social skills: Direct and indirect paths of influence over time. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23 (2), 135–156. Stein, M.A., Efron, L.A., Schiff, W.B. & Glanzman, M. (2002). Attention deficits and hyperactivity. In M.L. Batshaw (Ed.) Children with disabilities. (5th ed.) Sydney: Elsevier/Baltimore. MD: Brookes, pp. 389–416. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J.D. & Mounts, N.S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60 (6), 1424–1436. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Darling, N., Mounts, N.S. & Dornbusch, S.M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65 (3), 754–770. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Dornbusch, S.M. & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63 (5), 1266–1281. Sternberg, K.J., Baradaran, L.P., Abbott, C.B., Lamb, M.E. & Guterman, E. (2006a). Type of violence, age, and gender differences in the effects of family violence on children’s behavior problems: A mega-analysis. Developmental Review, 26 (1), 89–112. Sternberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Guterman, E. & Abbott, C.B. (2006b). Effects of early and later family violence on children’s behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal, multi-informant perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30 (3), 283–306. Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29 (3), 160–165, Stevens, V., De Bourdeauhuij, I. & Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (2), 195–210.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

246

Bibliography

Stonehouse, A. & Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2004). Making links: A collaborative approach to planning and practice in early childhood services. Sydney: Pademelon. Stoneman, Z. & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2006). Marital adjustment in families of young children with disabilities: Associations with daily hassles and problem–focused coping. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111 (1), 1–14. Stoolmiller, M. (2001). Synergistic interaction of child manageability problems and parent-discipline tactics in predicting future growth in externalizing behavior for boys. Developmental Psychology, 37 (6), 814–825. Stores, R., Stores, G., Fellows, B. & Buckley, S. (1998). Daytime behaviour problems and maternal stress in children with Down’s syndrome, their siblings, and nonintellectually disabled and other intellectually disabled peers. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42 (3), 228–237. Stormont, M. (2002). Externalizing behavior problems in young children: Contributing factors and early intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (2), 127–138. Stormshak, E.A., Bierman, K.L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D. & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70 (1), 169–182. Strain, P.S. & Joseph, G.E. (2004). Engaged supervision to support recommended practices for young children with challenging behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24 (1), 39–50. Strein, W., Simonson, T. & Vail, L. (1999). Convergence of views: Self-perceptions of African American and White kindergartners. Psychology in the Schools, 36 (2), 125–134. Strike, K.A. (1988). Fairness and ability grouping. Educational Theory, 33 (3 & 4), 125–134. Sturge-Apple, M.L., Davies, P.T. & Cummings, E.M. (2006). Impact of hostility and withdrawal in interparental conflict on parental emotional unavailability and children’s adjustment difficulties. Child Development, 77 (6), 1623–1641. Suarez, L.M & Baker, B.L. (1997). Child externalizing behaviour and parents’ stress: The role of social support. Family Relations, 46 (4), 373–381. Sullivan, T.N., Farrell, A.D. & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18 (1), 119–137. Summers, J.A., Dell’Oliver, C., Turnbull, A.P., Benson, H.A., Santelli, E., Campbell, M. & Siegal-Causey, E. (1990). Examining the individualised family service plan process: What are family and practitioner preferences? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10 (1), 78–99. Summers, J.A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A., Poston, D. & Nelson, L.L. (2005). Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72 (1), 65–81. Sundell, K. (2000). Examining Swedish profit and nonprofit child care: The relationships between adult-to-child ratio, age composition in child care classes, teaching and children’s social and cognitive achievements. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 91–114.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

247

Sweeting, H., Young, R., West, P. & Der, G. (2007). Peer victimization and depression in early–mid adolescence: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (3), 577–594. Swiatek, M.A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (3), 154–161. Swiatek, M.A. & Benbow, C.P. (1991). Ten-year longitudinal follow-up of abilitymatched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (4), 528–538. Swick, K.J. (2003). Communication concepts for strengthening family–school community partnerships. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (4), 275–280. Sylva, K. (1994). School influences on children’s development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Related Disciplines, 35 (1), 135–170. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K. & Totsika, V. (2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental rating scales. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21 (1), 76–92. Tannenbaum, A.J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tattum, D. (1993a). What is bullying? In D. Tattum (Ed.) Understanding and managing bullying. Oxford, UK: Heinemann Educational, pp. 3–14. Tattum, D. (1993b). Short, medium and long-term management strategies. In D. Tattum (Ed.) Understanding and managing bullying. Oxford, UK: Heinemann Educational, pp. 59–75. Taylor, L.C., Hinton, I.D. & Wilson, M.N. (1995). Parental influences on academic performance in African-American students. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4 (3), 293–302. Terry, A.A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study to investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 (2), 255–268. Thomas, D.E., Bierman, K.L. & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2006). The impact of classroom aggression on the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Development and Psychopathology, 18 (2), 471–487. Thompson, A., Hollis, C. & Richards, D. (2003). Authoritarian parenting attitudes as a risk for conduct problems: Results from a British national cohort study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12 (2), 84–91. Thompson, L., Lobb, C., Elling, R., Herman, S., Jurkiewicz, T. & Hulleza, C. (1997). Pathways to family empowerment: Effects of family-centered delivery of early intervention services. Exceptional Children, 64 (1), 99–113. Thompson, L.A. & Plomin, R. (2000). Genetic tools for exploring individual differences in intelligence. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 157–164. Thompson, R.A. & Wyatt, J.M. (1999). Current research on child maltreatment: Implications for educators. Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 173–201. Tidwell, R. (1980). A psycho-educational profile of 1,593 gifted high school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24 (2), 63–68. Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (1), 63–83.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

248

Bibliography

Torrance, E.P. (1998). Talent among children who are economically disadvantaged or culturally different. In J.F. Smutny (Ed.) The young gifted child: Potential and promise: An anthology. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 95–118. Townsend, M. (2004). Acceleration and enrichment and acceleration: A union rather than a choice. In D. McAlpine and R. Moltzen (Eds.) Gifted and Talented: New Zealand perspectives. (2nd ed.) Palmerston North: Manuka Grove Press, pp. 289–308. Townsend-Cross, M. (2004). Indigenous Australian perspectives in early childhood education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (4), 1–6. Tremblay, R.E. (2004). Decade of behavior distinguished lecture: Development of physical aggression during infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25 (5), 399–407. Trickett, P.K. (1998). Multiple maltreatment and the development of self and emotion regulation. In B.B.R. Rossman & M.S. Rosenberg (Eds.) Multiple victimization of children: Conceptual, developmental, research and treatment issues. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 171–187. Tronick, E.Z., Messinger, D.S., Weinberg, M.K., Lester, B.M., LaGasse, L., Seifer, R., Bauer, C.R., Shankaran, S., Bada, H., Wright, L.L., Poole, K. & Liu, J. (2005). Cocaine exposure is associated with subtle compromises of infants’ and mothers’ social-emotional behavior and dyadic features of their interaction in the face-toface still-face paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 41 (5), 711–722. Tucker, C.M., Zayco, R.A., Herman, K.C., Reinke, W.M., Trujillo, M., Carraway, K., Wallack, C. & Ivery, P.D. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictors of academic engagement among low-income African American children. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (4), 477–488. Turbiville, V.P. & Marquis, J.G. (2001). Father participation in early education programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 (4), 223–231. Turley, R.N.L. (2003). Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother’s age or family background? Child Development, 74 (2), 465–474. Turnbull, A.P. & Ruef, M. (1996). Family perspectives on problem behavior. Mental Retardation, 34 (5), 280–293. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E.J. & Soodak, L.C. (2006). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Turnbull, H.R., Guess, D. & Turnbull, A.P. (1988). Vox populi and Baby Doe. Mental Retardation, 26 (3), 127–132. Tyler, J.S. & Colson, S. (1994). Common pediatric disabilities: Medical aspects and educational implications. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27 (4), 1–16. Tymchuk, A.J. (1992). Predicting adequacy of parenting by people with mental retardation. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 165–178. Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the resilience of high–risk adolescents. Family Process, 43 (1), 23–41. van Boxtel, H.W. & Mönks, F.J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21 (2), 169–186. van Lier, P.A.C., Wanner, B. & Vitaro, F. (2007). Onset of antisocial behavior, affiliation with deviant friends, and childhood maladjustment: A test of the childhoodand adolescent-onset models. Development and Psychopathology, 19 (1), 167–185.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

249

Van Schoiack–Edstrom, L., Frey, K.S. & Beland, K. (2002). Changing adolescents’ attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a schoolbased intervention. School Psychology Review, 31 (2), 201–216. Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1992). Educational decision making on acceleration and grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (2), 68–72. Vandell, D.L., Henderson, V.K. & Wilson, K.S. (1988). A longitudinal study of children with day-care experiences of varying quality. Child Development, 59 (5), 1286–1292. Vaughn, B.E., Vollenweider, M., Bost, K.K., Azria-Evans, M.R. & Snider, J.B. (2003). Negative interactions and social competence for preschool children in two samples: Reconsidering the interpretation of aggressive behavior for young children. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 49 (3), 245–278. Verschueren, K. & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self and socio-emotional competence in kindergartners: Differential and combined effects of attachment to mother and to father. Child Development, 70 (1), 183–201. Vialle, W., Ashton, T., Carlon, G. & Rankin, F. (2001). Acceleration: A coat of many colours. Roeper Review, 24 (1), 14–19. Vickers, M., Parris, M. & Bailey, J. (2004). Working mothers of children with chronic illness: Narratives of working and caring. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (1), 39–44. Vigil, J.M., Geary, D.C. & Byrd-Craven, J. (2005). A life history assessment of early childhood sexual abuse in women. Developmental Psychology, 41 (3), 553–561. Vitaro, F., Barker, E.D., Boivin, M., Brendgen, M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2006). Do early difficult temperament and harsh parenting differentially predict reactive and proactive aggression? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (5), 685–695. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S. & Tremblay, R.E. (2005). Kindergarten disruptive behaviors, protective factors, and educational achievement by early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (4), 617–629. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M. & Tremblay, R.E. (2002). Reactively and proactively aggressive children: Antecedent and subsequent characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (4), 495–505. Vizard, E., Monck, E. & Misch, P. (1995). Child and adolescent sex abuse perpetrators: A review of the research literature. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 (5), 731–756. Votruba–Drzal, E. (2006). Economic disparities in middle childhood development: Does income matter? Developmental Psychology, 42 (6), 1154–1167. Wagner, M., Spiker, D. & Linn, M.I. (2002). The effectiveness of the parents as teachers program with low-income parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22 (2), 67–81. Wagner, P. & Gillies, E. (2001). Consultation: A solution-focused approach. In Y. Ajmal and I. Rees (Eds.) Solutions in schools. London: BT Press, pp. 147–162. Wagner, P. & Watkins, C. (2005). Narrative work in schools. In A. Vetere and E. Dowling (Eds.) Narrative therapies with children and their families: A practitioner’s guide to concepts and approaches. London: Routledge, pp. 239–253. Wainright, J.L., Russell, S.T. & Patterson, C.J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75 (6), 1886–1898.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

250

Bibliography

Wakenshaw, M. (2002). Caring for your grieving child. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Warfield, M.E. & Hauser-Cram, P. (1996). Child care needs, arrangements, and satisfaction of mothers of children with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 34 (5), 294–302. Watamura, S.E., Donzella, B., Alwin, J. & Gunnar, M.R. (2003). Morning-to-afternoon inceases in cortisol concentrations for infants and toddlers at child care: Age differences and behavioral correlates. Child Development, 74 (4), 1006–1020. Waters, E. & Cummings, M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71 (1), 164–172. Waters, E., Hamilton, C.E. & Weinfield, N.S. (2000a). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Development, 71 (3), 678–683. Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J. & Albersheim, L. (2000b). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71 (3), 684–689. Waters, J. (1996). Making the connection: Parents and early childhood staff. Melbourne: Lady Gowrie Child Centre (Melbourne). Waters, M. & Crook, R. (1993). Sociology one: Principles of sociological analysis for Australians. (3rd ed.) Melbourne: Longman. Webb, J.T. (1993). Nurturing social–emotional development of gifted children. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks and A.H. Passow (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 525–538. Webb, J.T., Meckstroth, E.A. & Tolan, S.S. (1991). Guiding the gifted child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow. Webster, R.E. (2001). Symptoms and long-term outcomes for children who have been sexually assaulted. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (6), 533–547. Webster-Stratton C. & Spitzer, A. (1996). Parenting a young child with conduct problems: New insights using qualitative methods. In T.H. Ollendick and R.J. Prinz (Eds.) Advances in clinical child psychology Volume 18. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–62. Weinberg, M.K., Olson, K.L., Beeghly, M. & Tronick, E.Z. (2006). Making up is hard to do, especially for mothers with high levels of depressive symptoms and their infant sons. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (7), 670–683. Weiner, B. (2000). Interpersonal and intrapersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 22 (1), 1–14. Weinfeld, R., Barnes-Robinson, L., Jeweler, S. & Shevitz, B. (2002). Academic programs for gifted and talented/learning disabled students. Roeper Review, 24 (4), 226–233. Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A. & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71 (3), 695–702. Wentzel, K.R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 202–209. Wesley, P.W. & Buysse, V. (2003). Making meaning of school readiness in schools and communities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18 (3), 351–375.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

251

Westling, D.L. (1996). What do parents of children with moderate and severe mental disabilities want? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31 (2), 86–114. Westling, D.L. & Plaute, W. (1999). Views of Austrian parents about special education services for their children with mental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34 (1), 43–57. Weston, R. (1993). Well-being of young people in different family circumstances. Family Matters, 36, 28–30. Whalen, C.K., Henker, B. & Dotemoto, S. (1981). Teacher response to the methylphenidate (Ritalin) versus placebo status of hyperactive boys in the classroom. Child Development, 52 (3), 1005–1014. Whalen, C.K., Henker, B., Jamner, L.D., Ishikawa, S.S., Floro, J.N., Swindle, R., Perwien, A.R. & Johnston, J.A. (2006). Toward mapping daily challenges of living with ADHD: Maternal and child perspectives using electronic diaries. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (1), 111–126. Whelan, T. & Kelly, S. (1986). A hard act to follow: Step-parenting in Australia today. Melbourne: Penguin. White, K.R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91 (3), 461–481. White, K.R., Taylor, M.J. & Moss, V.D. (1992). Does research support claims about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs? Review of Educational Research, 62 (1), 91–125. Whitehead, L.C. & Gosling, V. (2003). Parents’ perceptions of interactions with health professionals in the pathway to gaining a diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis (TS) and beyond. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24 (2), 109–119. Whitmore, J.R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Whitmore, J.R. (1981). Gifted children with handicapping conditions: A new frontier. Exceptional Children, 48 (2), 106–114. Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield project: methodology and findings. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (Eds.) School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 20–56. Whitney-Thomas, J. & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1996). Packing the parachute: Parents’ experiences as their children prepare to leave high school. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 75–87. Williford, A.P., Calkins, S.D. & Keane, S.P. (2007). Predicting change in parenting stress across early childhood: Child and maternal factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (2), 251–263. Willis, C.A. (2002). The grieving process in children: Strategies for understanding, educating, and reconciling children’s perceptions of death. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29 (4), 221–226. Wilson, P. (1996). Challenges and changes in policy and thinking in gifted education in Australia. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education. Winslade, J. & Monk, G. (1999). Narrative counseling in schools: Powerful and brief. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

252

Bibliography

Winton, P. (1993). Providing family support in integrated settings: Research and recommendations. In C.A. Peck, S.L. Odom & D.D. Bricker (Eds.) Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp. 65–80. Winton, P.J., Sloop, S. & Rodriquez, P. (1999). Parent education: A term whose time is past. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19 (3), 157–161. Wodrich, D.L. (1994). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: What every parent wants to know. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Wolchik, S.A., Tein, J.-Y., Sandler, I.N. & Ayers, T.S. (2006). Stressors, quality of the child–caregiver relationship, and children’s mental health problems after parental death: The mediating role of self-system beliefs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34 (2), 212–229. Wolery, M. (1989). Transition in early childhood special education: Issues and procedures. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22 (2), 1–16. Wolters, C.A. & Daugherty, S.G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 181–193. Wood, K.J. & Care, E. (2002). The relationship between perfectionism and intelligence in a group of adolescents. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 11 (1) 22–29. Wood, W.D. III & Baker, J.A. (1999). Preferences for parent education programs among low socioeconomic status, culturally diverse parents. Psychology in the Schools, 36 (3), 239–247. Worchel-Prevatt, F.F., Heffer, R.W., Prevatt, B.C., Miner, J., Young-Saleme, T., Horgan, D., Lopez, M.A., Rae, W.A. & Frankel, L. (1998). A school reentry program for chronically ill children. Journal of School Psychology, 36 (3), 261–279. Worrell, F.C. (2007). Ethnic identity, academic achievement, and global self-concept in four groups of academically talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51 (1), 23–38. Wright, P.B. & Leroux, J.A. (1997). The self-concept of gifted adolescents in a congregated program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41 (3), 83–94. Wyman, P.A., Cowen, E.L., Work, W.C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K.B. & Fagen, D.B. (1999). Caregiving and developmental factors differentiating young at-risk urban children showing resilient versus stress–affected outcomes: A replication and extension. Child Development, 70 (3), 645–659. Yewchuk, C.R. (1995a). The ‘mad genius’ controversy: Implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (1), 3–29. Yewchuk, C.R. (1995b). Eminence and emotional stability: Historical and contemporary views. Gifted and Talented International, 10 (2), 52–55. Yewchuk, C.R. & Lupart, J.L. (2000). Inclusive education for gifted students with disabilities. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Pergamon, pp. 659–670. Yoon, J.S., Hughes, J.N., Cavell, T.A. & Thompson, B. (2000). Social cognitive differences between aggressive-rejected and aggressive-nonrejected children. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (6), 551–570.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Bibliography

253

Young, E.L., Boye, A.E. & Nelson, D.A. (2006). Relational aggression: Understanding, identifying, and responding in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (3), 297–312. Young, S. (2001). Solution focused anti-bullying. In Y. Ajmal and I. Rees (Eds.) Solutions in schools. London: BT Press, pp. 86–96. Young, S., Heptinstall, E., Sonuga-Barke, E.J.S., Chadwick, O. & Taylor, E. (2005). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive girls: Self-report of psychosocial status. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (3), 255–262. Youngblade, L.M. (2003). Peer and teacher rating of third- and fourth-grade children’s social behavior as a function of early maternal employment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44 (4), 477–488. Zahn-Waxler, C. & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14 (2), 107–130. Zaslow, M.J., Oldham, E., Moore, K.A. & Magenheim, E. (1998). Welfare families’ use of early childhood care and education programs, and implications for their children’s development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (4), 535–563. Zhang, C. & Bennett, T. (2003). Facilitating the meaningful participation of culturally and linguistically diverse families in the IFSP and IEP process. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18 (1), 51–59. Zhou, Q., Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Reiser, M., Spinrad, T.L. & Fabes, R.A. (2007). The developmental trajectories of attention focusing, attentional and behavioral persistence, and externalizing problems during school-age years. Developmental Psychology, 43 (2), 369–385. Zimet, D.M. & Jacob, T. (2001). Influences of marital conflict on child adjustment: Review of theory and research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4 (4), 319–335.


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Index

absence of parents 33 absenteeism 136, 179 abuse by partner/spouse 31, 161–162, 173 by teachers 49, 122 of children 149, 162, 171–188 of teachers 45 acceleration 105–106 accessibility 20, 43–44 accountability 10, 15, 69 ADD – see attention, deficits addiction 34 see also alcohol; drugs, illicit ADHD – see attention, deficits adjustment of children 3, 12, 15, 23, 28–31, 40, 110, 156, 157, 158, 161, 165, 169 of parents 25, 75–76 adversity, family 31, 43, 63, 110, 124, 152–169 advice giving 45, 46, 59 advocacy 17, 35, 85, 86, 91, 101, 104, 113, 127 cultural 38 aggression 25, 26, 49, 67, 85, 109, 129–150, 159–160, 162, 164, 176, 177 and attention deficits 117, 119, 120, 121 AIDS 89, 91 alcohol 28, 34, 66, 136, 159, 162, 174, 178 anger 44, 47, 48, 49, 116, 124, 129, 131, 133, 136, 138, 145, 161, 164, 185

animal cruelty 162 antisocial behaviour 29, 61, 123, 130, 131, 134, 140, 146, 147, 154, 156, 162, 164, 175 see also aggression; behavioural difficulties aspirations 2, 10, 11–12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 39, 43, 85 assertiveness 43, 47, 48–52, 131, 139, 142, 143, 184 assessment 5, 57, 79, 82–83, 94, 102, 119–120, 149 assimilation 37 attachment 25–26 attention 44, 89 deficits 117–127, 129, 149, 160, 164, 174, 176 skills 116, 130, 153 attitudes to giftedness 100–101 attributions 124 autism 76, 79 autonomy 15, 146, 149 awards 107 behavioural difficulties 3, 13, 28, 33, 34, 76, 77, 80, 84, 109, 112, 117, 119, 123, 129, 131, 132, 153, 159, 161, 162, 166, 171 see also aggression; bullying; disruptive behaviour behavioural guidance 111, 121–124, 183–184 behaviourism 123, 125, 184 beliefs 10, 11–12, 34, 39 bereavement 162–164

255


15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

256

Index

blame as a communication roadblock 46 no blame 147–148, 150 of others 48, 50, 52, 132, 176 of parents 45, 47, 57, 124 of teachers 125 positive 65 self 166, 176, 180, 181 blood sugar levels 89 boredom 94, 104, 105, 112, 117, 121, 137 bullying 129–150, 174 burn out 43 see also stress, of teachers career guidance 112 case conferences 125–126; see also meetings manager 86 chaos 126, 153, 159 child abuse 149, 162, 171–188 child care 25–27, 76–77, 155 child protection 167, 184, 185 class, socioeconomic 5, 11, 12, 24, 29, 161 climate 16–17, 18, 42, 139, 141, 150 collaborative problem solving 52–53, 150 collective efficacy 16, 125, 154 commitment 2, 8, 16, 44, 86 communication 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18–19, 24, 35, 80, 86, 91–92 skills 2, 41–54, 157 complaints, parental 45 compliance 50, 111, 164, 174 compulsive 176 confidentiality 38, 142 conflict 52–53 management/resolution 69, 177 parental 28, 30, 31, 33, 153, 160–161 peer 141 consultation 10, 69–71 contagion effect 129, 140 coping 28–29, 33, 37, 89, 132, 136, 162, 163, 165, 166, 176, 177, 181, 183 cortisol 89 counselling 9, 71, 145, 147, 168, 186 courtesy 41, 44, 45, 82


criticism 48, 50, 85 as a communication roadblock 46 of self 121, 124 cruelty, animal 162 culture 5, 11, 17, 34–39, 102, 103, 111, 113, 167, 168, 183 curriculum 70 adjustments for aggression 149 adjustments for attention deficits 120–121 adjustments for disability 75, 89 adjustments for gifted learners 94, 104–106 anti-bullying 140–141 cultural inclusion 35–36 stress prevention 165 dance 122 death 110, 162–164 defeatist thinking 132 deficit orientation 5, 6, 8, 57, 68, 82, 87 delinquency 31, 61, 130, 136, 150, 154, 174, 175 demands 50 depression 20, 25, 77, 107, 119, 156, 158–159, 164, 168, 177 deprivation 26 see also disadvantage development, children’s 6, 13, 25, 26, 149, 155 diabetes 89 diagnosis 5, 6, 8, 46, 70, 78, 79, 82–83, 90–91, 94–95, 118, 125 disabilities of parents 157–158 of students 3, 7, 8, 20, 23, 34, 67, 75–87, 89, 94, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107–109, 121, 124, 155; see also learning, difficulties/ disabilities disadvantage 5, 11, 15, 21, 35, 37, 87, 111, 130, 152, 153, 155, 157, 167, 168, 169, 173 see also class, socioeconomic; deprivation; poverty

15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Index

discipline 7, 21, 57–58 authoritarian/coercive/controlling/ punitive 30, 111, 120, 124, 125, 127, 146, 148, 153, 159, 161, 166, 174, 175, 183–184 egalitarian 14, 32, 131, 146 styles 131, 133, 146 see also behavioural guidance; parenting styles discrimination 32, 35, 36, 37 see also racism; oppression; prejudice; stereotypes disempowerment 22 disruptive behaviour 94, 109, 116–127, 129, 159, 174 diversity 2, 9, 17, 23–40, 76, 78 divorce 27–29, 33, 61, 110 doctors 10 see also medical, professionals dominance professional 5 social 129, 133, 134, 137, 141, 146, 148 Down syndrome 76, 78 drop out 174, 179 drugs, illicit 34, 140, 159–160, 162, 173, 174, 178 dyslexia 107, 121 early childhood 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25, 26, 130, 173 entry 105–106 intervention 8, 79, 95 EARS 65, 71 education, parent 6, 10 efficacy collective 16, 154 self- 2, 16, 18, 19–20, 41, 88, 119, 125, 127, 132, 136, 157, 158, 162, 165–166, 167, 173, 177 egalitarianism 14, 32, 101, 131, 146 electronic bullying 139 elitism 101, 113 emotional control/regulation 12, 69, 84, 117, 118, 119, 123, 130, 148, 152, 158, 160, 177


257

see also self-regulation emotional needs 5 empathic assertion 51 empathy 37, 43, 50, 129, 130, 142, 147, 176, 177, 183, 185 employers 9, 15 employment options for students 21 parental 13, 24–25, 28, 30, 92 see also working parents empowerment 5, 8, 10, 15, 82, 147, 184 see also disempowerment English 13, 35, 37, 113 entry early 105–106 to school 116–117 environmental adjustments 88, 104–105, 120 risk 26 see also neighbourhoods equality 8, 9, 101 ethnicity 23 see also culture exceptions 62-64, 70, 71, 121, 125, 126, 127, 188 exclusion 92, 137, 138, 142, 146 expectations by parents 11, 12 of parents 7, 9 of students 11, 17–18, 116, 118, 152–153, 174 of teachers 9 expertise 3, 6, 8, 9–10, 22, 55–56, 58, 59, 70, 80 extended family 23–24, 26, 31, 38, 58 externalise problems 63, 67, 68–69, 71 extracurricular activities 14, 81, 87, 113, 145, 165 extrinsic motivation 107 family-allied approach 6–7, 21, 126 family-centred relationships 7–9 father involvement 39

15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

258

Index

fatigue 89 favouritism 43, 90, 101 feedback 119, 121, 124, 148 informative 107 feelings 48, 49, 51, 52 fees, school 10, 45 fetal alcohol syndrome 34, 159, 160, 166 foster children 34, 186 friendliness 42–43 friendships of students 66, 83, 99, 111, 134, 137, 138, 142, 154, 165 with parents 42–43 gender 23, 31, 32 genetics 126, 154 giftedness 94–114 indicators 95–99 goals 8, 60–62, 70, 75, 79, 86, 126 social 148 gossip 87, 134, 187 grade retention 87, 179 skipping 105–106 grades 14, 129 grandparents 1, 23, 33–34, 58 grief 33, 77–78, 79, 91, 162–164 grouping 105, 142 see also placement groups, support 21, 34, 37 guidance, behavioural 111, 121–124, 183–184 guilt 49, 50, 107, 146, 147, 187 hardship, economic/financial 28, 29, 126, 152, 154–157 see also class, socioeconomic; poverty health 10, 34, 88, 90, 119, 136, 149, 154, 155, 164 specialists 21 see also illness helicopter parents 91, 100 high school 9, 14, 20, 75, 79, 141 homework 7, 11, 13, 14 homosexual abuse 173, 181 honesty 43, 48, 129


hopelessness 45, 64 hot housing 95 hyperactivity 117, 120, 121, 164 see also attention, deficits hypervigilance 164, 183 illness 78, 87–91 I-messages 49–52 immigrants 13, 35, 37, 154 see also migrants imperialism 36 imprisonment 33 see also incarceration impulsivity 118, 119, 120, 121, 133, 149, 177, 178, 179 incarceration 34 see also imprisonment inclusion 35–36, 75, 82, 83–84, 90, 92, 105, 110–111, 113, 149 income 13, 25, 28, 30, 33, 154, 155 see also hardship, economic/financial; poverty indigenous culture 23 infanticide 171 information exchange 5, 6, 8, 13, 17, 20–21, 35, 37, 43, 80–81, 85, 90, 145, 185 intelligence 100, 119 interpreters 38, 39 intrinsic motivation 14, 19, 107, 179 involvement father 39 parental 10–15, 35 isolation parents’ 37, 114, 145, 167, 180 social 83, 84, 133, 135, 136, 140, 141, 175 judging 46, 49 justice 101, 149 language 35, 36 see also English skills 97–98, 119, 120, 130, 132, 149, 155, 158, 159, 160, 178 leadership 9, 16, 20, 33

15/1/08 11:47:17 AM

Index

learning difficulties/disabilities 6, 11, 19, 67, 94, 107-109, 120, 121, 127, 149, 159, 174; see also disabilities styles 96–97 legal procedures 149, 182, 187 lesbian mothers 31–32 library, parent 20, 21 listening 10, 43, 44–47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 70, 82, 147 literacy 7, 14, 21, 26, 117 cultural 36 locus of causality 132, 184 looping 142 marital satisfaction 75, 77 mastery 18, 166 mediation, peer 141 medical assessment/treatment 120, 183, 186 crisis 6 professionals 5, 88, 90, 125 see also doctors medication 88, 120, 159 meetings 13, 38–39, 58–59, 64, 81–82, 85 mental illness 158–159, 167, 175 migrants 37 see also immigrants minority cultures 34–35, 102, 103, 113, 168 see also culture miracle question 61, 70 mission 16 motivation 14, 18, 107, 124, 152, 179 myths 23, 102, 175 name calling 46, 69 narrative therapy 68 neglect and abuse 157, 161, 171–188 social 129 see also exclusion; rejection neighbourhoods 17, 28, 130, 153–154, 169, 176 nicotine 136, 159 see also smoking; tobacco


259

no-blame approaches 147–148 nonverbal bullying 138–139, 142 nuclear family 5, 23, 29, 32 number of children 24 oppression 36, 37, 141, 168 outreach 21 paedophiles 175 parent-driven style 2, 9–10, 22, 38, 57, 69, 70, 86, 92, 125, 127, 188 parent education/training 6, 10 parenting styles 14–15, 25, 107, 133, 157, 167 see also discipline peer mediation 141 perceptions 59 perfectionism 106–107 placement 83, 105, 149 pluralism 37 police 47, 150, 182 policy 6, 8, 13, 19, 47, 86, 139 politics 3, 35, 37 popularity 110, 111, 133, 134, 141 positiveness 42, 43 potential, gifted 100, 101 poverty 13, 25, 30, 31, 32, 37, 76, 154–158, 159, 168, 173 see also class, socioeconomic; socioeconomic, status power 3, 4–5, 7–8, 9, 21–22, 54, 127, 141, 174 praise 46, 184 prejudice 23, 168 see also discrimination; oppression; racism; stereotypes proactive aggression 133–134, 148 bullying 134 problem solving 49, 149 collaborative 52–53, 150 solution-focused 55–71 professional development 36 see also training, of teachers professional-driven approach 5–6, 21, 41, 126

15/1/08 11:47:18 AM

260

Index

protection, child 167, 184, 185 psychologists 7, 9, 119, 149, 186 punishment 123, 127, 184 quality of child care 25–27 of instruction 117 of parental care 25, 26 of schools 17–18, 153 questions 44, 61–64, 104 racism 113, 168 see also discrimination; oppression; prejudice; stereotypes rapport 60, 125 reactive aggression 131–133 bullying 134 readiness 14, 116–117 reading 7, 12, 118, 120, 178 referrals 9, 71, 87, 185, 186 reflection 44–45, 52 reframing 67–68, 71 regulation of emotion 12, 69, 84, 117, 118, 119, 123–124, 127, 130, 131, 148, 152, 158, 159, 160, 166, 176 see also self-regulation rejection 129, 166, 177 relapses 65-66 relational bullying 137–139, 146 relationship styles 3–10 relaxation time 11, 80 remorse 67 reputation 66, 140 requests 50 resilience 62–63, 65, 142, 164, 165, 182, 183 resources 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 34, 75, 80, 91, 116, 129, 157 national 101 respect 20, 23, 36, 42, 48, 54, 55, 57, 73 respite care 34, 81, 86 responsibilities of children 33, 38 of consultants 69 of parents 99–100


of teachers 1, 48, 70, 86 responsiveness 19, 20, 21, 43–44, 157, 158 restorative responses 147 reticence 140 reversal questions 64 rewards 14, 107, 123, 184 roadblocks to communication 45, 46 roles 7, 8, 11, 16, 32, 39, 44, 48, 73, 86 safety 1, 127, 134, 141, 162, 171, 174, 182 satisfaction, job 16, 18 scaling 61–62, 66, 70, 126 secondary school 25, 135 see also high school security personnel 47 selfdetermination 15, 105 efficacy 2, 16, 18, 19–20, 41, 88, 119, 125, 127, 132, 136, 157, 158, 162, 165–166, 167, 173, 184 esteem 26, 89, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 134, 136, 137, 162, 175, 177, 183 regulation 16, 116, 118, 119, 124, 127, 130, 131–132; see also emotional control/regulation restraint skills 120 sensitivity 42, 43 sensory integration difficulties 89, 178 separation, parental 28–29, 162, 163 sexual abuse 171–188 behaviour 140, 178 debut 28, 179 harassment 139–140 orientation 23, 31–32, 139–140, 145 shared concern method 147–148 single parents 13, 25, 28–31, 80, 168 smoking 140, 159 see also nicotine; tobacco social behaviour 116 competence 129, 176 difficulties 119, 120, 159 inclusion 35–36, 75, 82, 83–84, 90, 92, 105, 110–111, 113, 149

15/1/08 11:47:18 AM

Index

isolation 83, 84, 133, 135, 136, 140, 141, 175 skills 12, 83, 99, 123, 133, 134, 147, 160, 177–178, 183 workers 7, 9 socioeconomic difficulties 29 inequalities 35 status 23, 34, 157, 175 see also class, socioeconomic; poverty sole parents 25 see also single parents solution-focused approach 39, 55–71, 121, 122, 123, 125, 143–144, 146–148, 150, 168 solutions 2, 5, 22, 46, 54, 55–71, 123 sport 14 status 8, 129, 133, 138, 141 stepfamilies 32–33 stereotypes 23, 36, 102, 168 stimulants 120 storming the back door 125, 127 stress 125 of children 33, 89, 116, 136, 142, 146, 153, 164–165, 177, 180–181 of parents 8, 13, 28, 30, 32, 42, 68, 75, 76–78, 85, 126–127, 150, 153, 156, 157, 174, 180, 185 of teachers 18, 116, 121 structures of families 23, 30, 33 suicide 140 supervision 29–30, 140, 159 support for children 83–84, 89–90, 109–110, 145, 152, 165, 174, 181–184 for parents 21, 34, 37, 84, 90–91, 112–114, 126–127, 166–169, 184–186 for teachers 91, 125–126, 150, 187 suspension 149, 178 sympathy 43 task attack skills 12 taxes 10, 45 teenaged parents 31 therapists 10, 80


261

therapy 84 threats 46, 47, 132, 161, 174, 177, 181, 184, 186 time 38–39, 41, 47, 121 away 123, 148, 149, 166, 184 tobacco 28 see also nicotine; smoking top-down teaching 42, 70 tourist curriculum 36 training for parents 6, 10 of teachers 9, 18, 102, 114 transitions 85, 86, 116, 121, 152 translators 37–38 see also interpreters trust 1, 9, 18–19, 37, 42, 86, 91, 162 turfism 6, 41 tutors 10, 11, 13, 88, 89 unemployment 31 see also employment values 3, 10, 11–12, 13, 15, 20, 34, 36, 39, 42, 49, 112, 113 and aggression/bullying 133–145, 148 verbal abuse 122, 161, 167, 173–174 skills 118 see also language victim language 48 victims 5, 122, 125, 127, 129, 134, 137 see also bullying; child abuse vigilance 164, 183 violence 28, 149, 161–162, 168, 173, 174, 178, 180 volunteering 13, 17 warmth 42–43 wear and tear effect 79 wellbeing of children 26, 59, 156, 158 of parents 77 see also adjustment withdrawal 109, 160, 164, 177 working parents 13, 24–25, 76, 91

15/1/08 11:47:18 AM

Teacher–Parent Collaboration describes specific challenges that arise in schools and early childhood settings which commonly require collaboration between teachers and parents. Separate chapters outline how teachers can respond to the needs of parents whose sons or daughters have disabilities or chronic illness, are gifted learners, are displaying disruptive or aggressive behaviour (including bullying) at school, or whose families are enduring adversity or child neglect or abuse. This book describes how teachers can collaborate with parents to resolve these challenges to improve the children’s functioning and achievement throughout their education years.

ISBN 978-0-86431-623-3

Teacher–Parent Collaboration Early childhood to adolescence

LOUISE PORTER

About the author Dr Louise Porter PhD, MA (Hons), MGiftedEd, DipEd is a child psychologist and trained teacher with almost 30 years’ experience working with children, their parents and educators. She has published widely and is currently an adjunct senior lecturer in Education at Flinders University, South Australia.


Teacher–Parent Collaboration: Early childhood to adolescence describes the skills teachers will need for productive collaboration with their students’ parents. It employs a solution-focused approach which honours the diversity of families, respects the expertise of both parents and teachers and promotes authentic communication between them.

9 780864 316233

LOUISE PORTER

Teacher-Parent Collaboration: Early Childhood to Adolescent

The Early Childhood Curriculum (Early Childhood Education)

Introduction to Early Childhood Education

Shaping Early Childhood

Early Childhood Studies

Early Childhood Studies

Shaping Early Childhood

Gender in Early Childhood

Leadership in Early Childhood

Early Childhood Studies

Early Childhood Assessment

Early childhood education today

Equality in Early Childhood

Developing Early Childhood Services

Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education (Contesting Early Childhood)

Forming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play (Contesting Early Childhood)

Early Childhood Qualitative Research (Changing Images of Early Childhood)

Schwartz Survivors of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer

Enthusiastic and Engaged Learners: Approaches to Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom (Early Childhood Education Series)

Teamwork and Collaboration in Early Years Settings

Collaboration

Studying Childhood and Early Childhood: A Guide for Students

An Introduction to Early Childhood: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Play in Early Childhood: From Birth to Six Years

A constructivist approach to block play in early childhood

Multiple Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood Education (Suny Series, Early Childhood Education, Inquiries and Insights)

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

Early Childhood Services: Theory, Policy and Practice

Child Development for Early Childhood Studies

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Teacher-Parent Collaboration: Early Childhood to Adolescent

The Early Childhood Curriculum (Early Childhood Education)

Introduction to Early Childhood Education

Shaping Early Childhood

Early Childhood Studies

Early Childhood Studies

Shaping Early Childhood

Gender in Early Childhood

Leadership in Early Childhood

Early Childhood Studies

Early Childhood Assessment

Early childhood education today

Equality in Early Childhood

Developing Early Childhood Services

Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education (Contesting Early Childhood)

Forming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play (Contesting Early Childhood)

Early Childhood Qualitative Research (Changing Images of Early Childhood)

Schwartz Survivors of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer

Enthusiastic and Engaged Learners: Approaches to Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom (Early Childhood Education Series)

Teamwork and Collaboration in Early Years Settings

Collaboration

Studying Childhood and Early Childhood: A Guide for Students

An Introduction to Early Childhood: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Play in Early Childhood: From Birth to Six Years

A constructivist approach to block play in early childhood

Multiple Perspectives on Play in Early Childhood Education (Suny Series, Early Childhood Education, Inquiries and Insights)

Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education

Early Childhood Services: Theory, Policy and Practice

Child Development for Early Childhood Studies

Understanding Early Childhood: Issues and Controversies

Recommend Documents