Learning support zones in schools are providing a “safe space” for secondary students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties but are not encouraging their reintegration into the mainstream, according to a new study.
The study, published in the most recent edition of the University of Malta’s International Journal of Emotional Education, noted that past students who made use of learning support zones (LSZ) felt they benefitted from the service and had great respect for and were thankful to the teachers who provided it.
They felt the programme helped them acquire skills that improved their future but there was little involvement of their parents at the time.
“None of these past students were ever reintegrated into the mainstream, and because they strongly felt that they did not fit in, they clearly showed no interest in being reintegrated,” wrote researchers Elise Cassar and Angela Abela in their study titled ‘Learning support zones: former students’ experience and perceived impact on home and work environment’.
"Students spend part of their school day in these zones that seek to promote inclusion by tackling disaffection, improving behaviour and reducing the number of exclusions. This is done through programmes such as anger management, behaviour modification and emotional literacy"
In Malta, LSZs started being introduced around 2009 and cater for about seven per cent of secondary school students, with the number being on the rise in the last few years, the study said.
Students spend part of their school day in these zones that seek to promote inclusion by tackling disaffection, improving behaviour and reducing the number of exclusions. This is done through programmes such as anger management, behaviour modification and emotional literacy.
The study explored how past students who attended LSZs in Maltese secondary schools perceived their attendance there and its impact on their home and work environments. In-depth interviews were conducted with 11 adults who attended the LSZ when they were in secondary school. They were aged over 18 when they participated in the study. Due to a lack of records, the students were identified by schools – possibly providing a limitation to the study in that those selected may have been on good terms with the school.
‘Not all students are highfliers’
The findings highlight the multiple struggles students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties face.
“Difficult family circumstances were a very common denominator among respondents, with issues varying from marital trouble between parents, abandonment issues from parents, mental health difficulties experienced by parents and being put up into a children’s home… Social difficulties were identified by the participants, including poverty, feelings of social inferiority, unhealthy friendships and peer pressure,” the study said.
All participants made references to emotional struggles, and even though some did identify these emotions – namely anger and impulsivity issues, extreme timidness and low self-confidence – most recalled a lack of understanding of what were the triggers.
“First, it feels like sadness, but then, it becomes anger. But I have no idea where it comes from,” one student said.
Mental health difficulties, though varying in type and severity, were common among the participants, with participants recalling incidents of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, extreme mood swings and depression.
Students felt they did not fit in at school and academic demands were perceived to be too difficult, disciplinary measures as too harsh and the lack of empathy from school staff as unpleasant.
“Not all students are highfliers… We need to give a chance to struggling students too,” one young woman said.
Negative labelling
Respondents’ focus lay primarily on their lack of ability to fulfil social expectations and related implications, making such comments as “I wasn’t good… a total disaster.”
The majority referred to themselves using such phrases as “children like me”. When asked to describe this further, an array of negative descriptors were given, including “troublemaker”, “rude”, “really bad”, “rebellious” and “short-tempered, mischievous, and carefree”.
“The prevalence of negative labelling in schools was believed to have exacerbated negative approaches towards them. All the participants expressed a sense of acceptance of these negative attributes, making comments like ‘this is how I am’,” the report said.
The narratives highlight the positive impact of the LSZ – as a place they trusted and felt accepted – but the families of these students were hardly involved.
“In certain instances, the lack of communication between the parents and school allowed for the students to trick both. This highlights the need to move away from one-dimension interventions to an ecological systems approach, which tackles the multiple layers of the students’ systems, including parents, friends, and schools. This study suggests that due to the lack of parental involvement, the impact on the whole family was minimal,” the study noted.
Having said that, participants identified several emotional and social skills they learnt at the LSZ, which they believe helped them improve their situation at home, or their own approach in dealing with the situations at home.
The researchers recommended the re-evaluation of inclusive policies within schools, consideration of the perspective of the students, better understanding and monitoring of students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and more active involvement of all relevant stakeholders, especially families.