Family intervention
A solution for vulnerable families?
The coalition’s Education Business Plan sets out its intention to ‘develop a new approach to turning around the lives of chaotic and dysfunctional families’. Headteacher Update looks at what this pledge entails and what solutions might be considered for the future
T
here must have been a few cynically raised eyebrows at the coalition’s announcement; what could this new approach be? Schools and their partners have struggled for years to work
with challenging families in the knowledge that a background of chaos is a poor starting point for a lifetime of achievement. So far, there have been no magic remedies. Then came the new coalition government’s ambition to turn around
the lives of families with multiple problems by the end of this parliament. It is not an initiative only fuelled by the need to do public good, the government’s Families Savings Calculator was used with a sample of 40 families collected from 19 authorities and the average total cost avoidance as a result of a family completing an intervention successfully was calculated at £81,624. A strong incentive when speeches are peppered with the word “austerity”. As more detail is applied to sweeping statements, intentions and
promises, some new themes are emerging. “Family therapy” is one of them.
What is family therapy? The word therapy can conjure up an alien, American “let’s talk about this” stereotype. Pictures of families sitting cross-legged in circles being frank, argumentative and then embracing. We have seen it all time and time again on Oprah Winfrey and might wonder how such an approach will transfer to the dysfunctional families of Jeremy Kyle. Language and stereotypical perceptions can get in the way. The central principles of family therapy are ones that most people would subscribe to if the cultural associations and jargon were stripped away. Family therapy, not surprisingly, takes the family as its focus. It believes
that key to any solution are the relationships that exist between family members and that to solve problems involving the family is key. There are different variations of family therapy. However, there tend to
be notable similarities between them: ■ They are based within the family and are usually located in the home. ■ They are intensive and involve a prescribed number of sessions over a period of time.
■ Relationships within the family are a central part of any solution. ■ They focus more on solving problems than fi nding causes. ■ It involves a no-blame approach.
10 So, for example, if a child is behaving badly the family therapist might
look for ways within the resources of the family to deal with this rather than tracking back to the emotional reasons for why it is occurring. Family and therapist work together to resolve difficulties and find alternative, less-damaging ways of behaving. These programmes are not as new as you might think. Many of the
schools of family therapy emerged during the 1960s and have been around in one form or another since then. So why are they now making such an impact on the intervention horizon?
Why now? To begin with, we are struggling. Over generations our families have changed into very different entities from those depicted on the earliest television broadcasts. Old styles of working, which assume an authority over the recipient of support, can struggle to make any impact at all. Models of intervention based on what should happen at home rather
than what does have an unworkable foundation. Programmes which require parents to come into school to be told how to manage their child’s behaviour are often dependent upon skills that parents do not have and that may be too late for them to acquire. However, family therapy acknowledges this and has the advantage of
being able to start from whatever foundation is already there. It meets the family more than halfway, in the home, and engages with current practice, highlights existing relationships and develops them to create a solution. Having a strong American focus, family therapy projects and
programmes have the advantage of being both interventions and being well researched. Graham Allen’s report Early Intervention: The Next Steps (2011) is the fi rst of two reports setting out the rationale for early intervention. The main principle is that the earlier you intervene in a child’s life the more chance there is that the cycle of disadvantage and low expectations will be broken. This brings lots of social advantages, not to mention fi nancial savings. Allen refers to 72 different early intervention programmes altogether
with 19 identifi ed as being the most desirable. The majority are from the US, a result of the criteria used by Allen. Programmes had to be able to demonstrate their effectiveness to be mentioned. They had to do much more than collect anecdotal information and provide a RAISEonline analysis.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40