No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Maximising Resources for Servicing the Needs of Children Exhibiting Behaviour Problems in Primary School: The Shift from Withdrawal to Outreach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2014
Abstract
Socio-psycho-educational resource (SPER) centres were first established in Western Australia in 1977 for the purpose of educating and managing primary school-aged children with severe behaviour problems. Each centre functioned as a separate unit located on the campus of a host primary school. Selected children were initially withdrawn from their regular schools to attend the SPER centre where they received a specialised program aimed at decreasing their problematic behaviour. The host school assisted re-entry of SPER centre children into the mainstream by providing part-time integration within its regular classes prior to eventual return to the regular school. In 1988 the Coolbellup SPER Centre began to replace this withdrawal service model with an outreach model. By 1991 the preferred method was to deliver intervention programs within a child's home school. Data revealed that the outreach model was able to service in excess of three times as many children each year as the withdrawal model, with only a minimal increase in teaching staff and with an associated reduction in the length of waiting lists. Post hoc evaluation of student records demonstrated high levels of success for the outreach model, based on teacher ratings of improvement in rule following, peer interactions, and overall school behaviour and performance. Other benefits of the outreach program are discussed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 1996
References
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all: An alternative 10 special needs in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, 293–308.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author..Google Scholar
Berge, N.B., & Berge, Z.L. (1988). Integration of disabled students into regular classrooms in the United States and Victoria, Australia. The Exceptional Child, 35, 107–117.Google Scholar
Blankenship, C., & Lilly, M.S. (1981). Mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, S. (1992). Normalisation, needs and schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 7, 216–222.Google Scholar
Education Department of Western Australia. (1985). Disruptive behaviour in schools report 1985: Report of the Ministerial Working Party appointed by the Minister for Education and Planning in Western Australia. Perth, WA: Author.Google Scholar
Field, B.A. (1986). The nature and incidence of classroom behaviour problems and their remediation through pre-ventative management. Behaviour Change, 3, 53–57.Google Scholar
Galloway, D., Ball, T., Bloomfield, D., & Seyd, R. (1982). Schools and disruptive pupils. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gipps, C., & Gross, H. (1987). Children with special needs in the primary school: Where are we now? Support for Learning, 2, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gow, L., Ward, J., Balla, J., & Sow, D. (1988). Directions for integration in Australia: Overview of a report to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Part II. The Exceptional Child, 35, 5–22.Google Scholar
Hornby, G. (1992). Integration of children with special educational needs: Is it time for a policy review? Support for Learning, 7, 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, V. (1984). An administrative guide to developing and evaluating a building discipline program. NASSP Bulletin, 59–64.Google Scholar
Kolvin, I., Garside, R.F., Nicol, A.R., Macmillan, A., Wolstenholme, F., & Leitch, I.M. (1981). Help starts here: The maladjusted child in the ordinary school. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Leach, D.J., & Raybould, E.C. (1977). Learning and behaviour difficulties in school. UK: Open Books.Google Scholar
Mortimore, P., Davies, J., Varlaam, A., & West, A. (1983). Behaviour problems in schools: An evaluation of support centres. Guildford, UK: Biddles Ltd.Google Scholar
Norton, G.R., Austen, S., Allen, C.E., & Hilton, J. (1983). Acceptability of time out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior: A further analysis. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5, 31–41.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D., & O'Leary, S.C. (Eds.). (1979). Classroom management and the successful use of behaviour modification (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalisation in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). Program analysis of service systems implementation of normalisation goals. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Wrate, R.M., Kolvin, I., Garside, R.F., Wolstenholme, F., Hulbert, C.M., & Leitch, I.M. (1985). Helping seriously disturbed children. In Nicol, A.R. (Ed.), Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar