View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How Person-Centred Planning Can Contribute to Organisational Change in a School

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Person-Centred Planning Can Contribute to Organisational Change in a School
Language: English
Authors: Hughes, Cerian, Maclean, Georgina, Stringer, Phil
Source: Educational Psychology in Practice. 2019 35(2):229-238.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Organizational Change, Special Needs Students, Program Effectiveness, Intervention, Educational Planning, Transitional Programs, Individualized Transition Plans
DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2018.1557599
ISSN: 0266-7363
Abstract: This article reflects on the experience of applying a person-centred approach to promote organisational change in an educational context. A detailed example is drawn from a Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH) process with a group of school staff. The article considers existing research into person-centred approaches and explores key factors that may help or hinder the effectiveness of these approaches. A number of implications for professional practice are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1215408
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHAUOJ4GAbVj3elgyp89EyuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOKRCJ3XvGV_sAuhKgIBEICBm8dH1VUcJe74Enu8ZQT0H_5u0QcVTgazUmI9Ywr3x6NarwhVNK3iZ5Ny2X9QmglRAXVNavWJJoIZfp-TPZoZzaW4ML4rUV62kKhvJtQKSePJ3duE3EO_9AO172nZ42-PgkyHi4dr142RBhvhqO2fzJhi6TukLhlFZyHmKeprx4nF6UApxxvpiamZ8XqnbBI9YCYgYcb3BCchDpWm
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0136270828;b8g01jun.19;2019May09.02:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0136270828-1">How person-centred planning can contribute to organisational change in a school </title> <p>This article reflects on the experience of applying a person-centred approach to promote organisational change in an educational context. A detailed example is drawn from a Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH) process with a group of school staff. The article considers existing research into person-centred approaches and explores key factors that may help or hinder the effectiveness of these approaches. A number of implications for professional practice are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Person-centred approach; person-centred planning; systemic; organisational change; schools; school staff</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Promoting Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH) is a person-centred approach first developed by Pearpoint, O'Brien, and Forest ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]). Person-centred approaches originated in the USA and Canada over 30 years ago to support adults with disabilities in overcoming barriers to inclusion and participation (Corrigan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Person-centred approaches include PATH (Pearpoint et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]), Making Action Plans (MAPS; Forest, Pearpoint, & O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]), Essential Lifestyle Planning (ELP; Smull & Harrison, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]) and Personal Futures Planning (Mount & Zwernick, 1989). All of these approaches are forms of person-centred planning (PCP). PATH can be used as a PCP approach with individuals and with organisations. PCP embraces a humanistic perspective that emphasises choice, growth and constructive fulfilment (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]), and principles of equality, empowerment and collaboration (Sanderson, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]). Holburn ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]) identifies "core elements" of PCP, which are: placing the individual at the centre of planning and decision-making; creating a shared vision for the future; identifying strengths and support needs; building relationships and community connections; developing action plans (with a set review date); establishing accountability; and follow-up. This article focusses on a case study exploring the use of a PCP approach in a school. The research included below explores the practical use of PCP in education. A substantial critical review of PCP approaches is beyond the scope of this article but would be useful to undertake in the future, especially as the body of literature grows.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-3">Research on person-centred planning in education</hd> <p>There has been limited research into the use of PCP approaches in educational contexts. The majority of research that has been carried out has explored the use of PCP methods with individual children rather than its use with systemic issues.</p> <p>However, a recent study by Morgan ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]) explored the use of PATH with six different groups of professionals working in educational organisations within a local authority. Each group participated due to difficulties arising from managing enforced change, or due to recognition that existing organisational structures were no longer effective. A number of key factors emerged about the PATH process from a sample of participants interviewed afterwards. Participants appeared to particularly value having a sense of ownership and being able to be active agents of change. The PATH process facilitated communication and enabled participants to reflect on current difficulties, as well as what they hoped for in their preferred future. Some participants reported during the interviews that their organisations had achieved the outcomes from the PATH process and had gone on to achieve even more. However, organisational change was limited by external factors and outside influences; for example, wider local authority pressures.</p> <p>Research carried out into PCP approaches focussed around individual pupils has found that these methods have been rated more favourably than traditional approaches, with school staff and parents reporting greater satisfaction, more participation, increased collaboration, and a shift in the topics discussed (Childre & Chambers, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]; Corrigan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Kaehne & Beyer, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]; Keyes & Owens-Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]). However, Corrigan ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]) found that staff from one school thought the process was less effective, took up more time than traditional approaches and did not focus enough on the pupils' difficulties.</p> <p>Other research suggests that participants liked the approach because they thought they were listened to and treated like equal partners in the process (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]; White & Rae, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]), and thought the approach led to a better understanding of children's needs (Corrigan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]). Participants also reported preferring the more holistic view of the children that was developed from using PCP approaches. Taylor-Brown ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]) explored three boys' experiences of person-centred transition review meetings. The boys reported that they enjoyed being able to talk about home and other aspects of their lives during the meetings. Similarly, White and Rae ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]) found that young people and their parents/carers liked the PCP approach as it created a more balanced and rounded picture of the young person rather than focussing solely on their needs and disabilities.</p> <p>Further research has explored the outcomes of PCP meetings for pupils. A longitudinal study by Robertson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]) found that for pupils with learning disabilities who received PCP, positive changes were found in six areas: social networks, contact with family, contact with friends, community activities, scheduled day activities, and choice. Corrigan ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]) looked at outcomes of PCP transition or reintegration meetings for six pupils who had been excluded from school. It was found that they all achieved their individual targets set at the PCP meetings, showing improvements in their social interactions and greater engagement at school. White and Rae ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]) explored changes in children's locus of control scores after being involved in PCP meetings, but they found no significant changes. They argue that more person-centred processes may be required to make a difference to children's locus of control. However, it might be argued that the use of PCP alone may not impact upon children's locus of control unless this was a key feature in the discussion of pupil targets.</p> <p>A number of factors have been highlighted through the existing research that may help facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of PCP approaches. Participants reported that the structure and the visual nature of the approach meant that the process was more transparent, accessible and enabled greater participation (Taylor-Brown, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]). Corrigan ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]) stated that relationships between stakeholders, views of school staff in relation to PCP approaches, the ability for key stakeholders to attend meetings and facilitator skills were all factors that could help or hinder PCP approaches. Similarly, participants in the White and Rae ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]) study discussed the importance of having an experienced and skilled facilitator to help the process run smoothly.</p> <p>Morgan ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]) suggested that facilitator skills were linked to participants' feelings of security during the process which then enabled them to feel safe enough to take risks. Childre and Chambers ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]) also highlight facilitator skills as an important factor in order to be able to adapt the PCP process to meet the specific needs of a situation, or to relate more closely to the facilitator's personal style. Adequate preparation of participants is another important factor. White and Rae ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]) found that some participants felt daunted by the PCP approach, due in part to the fact that they knew they would be expected to write in front of others. The authors suggest that a lack of preparation for the PCP meetings may have increased anxieties and feelings of uncertainty (White & Rae, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, the research on the use of PCP in education has found that factors that contribute to the successful use of PCP for pupils, staff and parents include: increased engagement and participation; improved collaboration; more understanding of needs; higher achievement of targets leading to more positive changes; and the need to have skilled facilitators to enable security, safety and adaptation. Disadvantages found from PCP research in schools include: too little focus on pupils' difficulties; the process being time-consuming; and participants feeling daunted by the PCP process, with not enough preparation leading to increased anxiety and feelings of uncertainty.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-4">Case study exploring the use of person-centred planning with school staff</hd> <p>The suggestion of using a person-centred approach to discuss an effective response to children with additional needs emerged during a planning meeting in a primary school. It is worth noting that the purpose of this meeting was to plan with school staff how they would use the time that had been purchased from the educational psychology service.</p> <p>Over the past two years this particular school had experienced numerous staff changes, including the lengthy absence of a permanent SENCo (special educational needs coordinator). As a result, the school had a high percentage of newly qualified staff and teachers in training. During a planning meeting the acting SENCo raised concerns about a lack of staff understanding about SEND (special educational needs and disability), including staff mislabelling children (for example, diagnosing children with ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] and ASC [autism spectrum condition]), believing it to be the SENCo's role to deal with all SEND issues.</p> <p>Additionally, children's individual plans were not being reviewed or used effectively. In particular, the acting SENCo was concerned that there were no interventions being carried out for children with SEND. She had given staff a recent input on the SEND code of practice but was concerned that this had little impact on attitudes and views. It was clear to the authors that she wanted to promote a systemic change in attitudes to SEND and SEND provision within the school. The authors agreed on the aims of promoting organisational change, and identifying new directions for the school, and suggested holding a meeting using person-centred planning techniques to take this forward.</p> <p>The process used was based on an adapted version of PATH (Pearpoint et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]) (Table 1). Previous research has highlighted the importance of adapting a person-centred process to meet the needs of a specific situation (Childre & Chambers, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). Based on feedback from colleagues and on the authors' own previous experiences of person-centred meetings, it was decided to alter the wording of some of the headings. The authors wanted to make them clearer to participants and easier to feed back to other staff members not present at the meeting. Additionally, one of the steps where participants are asked to enrol in the journey was omitted because the authors considered that this should be done with the whole staff team. An adapted version of PATH was chosen as all educational psychologists (EPs) in the service have been trained in using this approach and many local schools are already familiar with it.</p> <p>Table 1. Description of adapted PATH process.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><bold>1. Our Vision –</bold> Participants were asked to visualise what their ideal SEND provision would look like within the school. The authors used a number of prompt questions to help them visualise this; for example, 'When you walk around the school what would you see? How would staff/students be feeling? What would they be doing?' Participants were asked to give feedback in small groups before sharing their thoughts with the whole group.</td></tr><tr><td><bold>2. One Year from Now –</bold> In this step participants were asked to imagine that a year had passed since they created their vision. During their conversations, they were encouraged to pretend to look back over the past year and to discuss what had been achieved as they worked towards their vision. Participants were encouraged only to discuss things that they thought could be possible (that could actually have happened) and positive.</td></tr><tr><td><bold>3. Now –</bold> Participants were asked to discuss factors that might be helping them move towards their vision, and factors that might hinder their progress. This step enabled participants to think about where they were at the present time in relation to their vision.</td></tr><tr><td><bold>4. What Helps –</bold> In this step participants were encouraged to identify and talk about existing skills and knowledge amongst school staff that could help them work towards their vision and overcome some of the barriers. It also enabled them to think about what skills or knowledge they may need to develop.</td></tr><tr><td><bold>5. Action Plan –</bold> In this final step the group were asked to identify clear actions to help them move towards the future. The facilitator emphasised the importance of the group generating specific actions, as opposed to good intentions, through the use of questions; for example, who, what, when, where?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Prior to the meeting the researchers sent the acting SENCo some information outlining the approach to share with other members of staff, as well as practical information about timings and room layout. A link to the Inclusive Solutions website (<ulink href="http://www.inclusive-solutions.com">www.inclusive-solutions.com</ulink>) was also sent so that the staff could see examples of the approach in action. The acting SENCo organised a quiet room and supplied refreshments and snacks. She invited key members of staff to the meeting that she thought would have the most to contribute and who were in a position to be able to influence change. This included the head teacher, a governor for SEND, the SENCo who was currently on maternity leave, and the finance officer.</p> <p>The meeting was facilitated by two EPs. One took the role of process facilitator who was responsible for guiding the group through the stages of the meeting, and the other took the role of graphic facilitator who created a large graphic record of the meeting.</p> <p>At the beginning of the meeting the authors gave the group an explanation about the process. Ground rules for the process were discussed, the authors explaining that these were to help prevent the group from being held back during the meeting. These included: no use of jargon, which can serve to alienate people should they not understand certain educational terms or acronyms; no judgemental comments; and no getting stuck in recalling the past but instead focussing on moving towards the future. The authors then went through the person-centred process, which took around two hours to complete, with a small break in the middle of the meeting.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-5">Reflections on the process and its outcomes</hd> <p>The adapted PATH process provided structure and focus for the meeting. It was important that the authors were able to adapt it to suit the needs of the school staff, with core features of PCP in mind. As Childre and Chambers ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]) point out, and the authors experienced, the process helped to shift meeting dynamics from general conversation to purposeful communication about specific issues, which supported more active and open interaction.</p> <p>It became evident during the meeting that all of the participants were engaged with the process. The approach appeared to help to encourage each member of the group to participate. This is similar to previous findings that person-centred processes can lead to an increase in participation and collaboration (Childre & Chambers, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Corrigan, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]; Keyes & Owens-Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]). However, there was reluctance at first, particularly from one member of staff whose non-verbal signals indicated that they did not feel entirely comfortable with the process. Yet, as the meeting progressed, the member of staff visibly relaxed and became more engaged.</p> <p>The group came up with a strong vision, including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> becoming a school of excellence in supporting children with SEND</item> <p></p> <item> providing quality SEND training for all staff</item> <p></p> <item> staff and parents working more collaboratively</item> <p></p> <item> strong transitions (across year groups and between schools)</item> <p></p> <item> all teachers to be responsible for SEND.</item> </ulist> <p>Core values emerged from this discussion, such as respect, trust, communication, knowledge and evidence-based practice. The authors often came back to these values and reflected on them with the group throughout the meeting. It was particularly evident when discussing the current situation that participants became aware that some of these values were not yet embedded within the current school climate. This led to in-depth discussion about what was already in place, and what is needed to help develop a more positive school climate.</p> <p>The group members appeared to be open and honest during the discussion, particularly when discussing factors that were barriers to them progressing towards their vision. The barriers included some staff not yet having developed their knowledge about how children learn, limited resources and space for SEND, low staff morale and a lack of communication between staff. The authors consider that the adapted PATH process, and having started with a clear vision to work towards, may have enabled the participants to explore issues that they may previously have been hesitant to raise. The structure and the solution-focussed nature of the process also meant that, while barriers were raised, these did not become the sole focus of the discussion. This is similar to previous findings which have highlighted that PCP approaches can lead to the development of a more balanced and rounded picture of the situation (White & Rae, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]). The "What Helps" step was particularly helpful to encourage participants to reflect on what was already working well within the school in line with the core values that had emerged during the meeting. The staff reported that things that were working well included having supportive governors, teachers and learning support assistants beginning to plan together, and staff having received recent training on SEND interventions.</p> <p>While the group all appeared to be engaged and open during the process, one voice did, at times, become dominant. This sometimes resulted in specific views being noted down, which may have been at odds with other members of the group. The dynamics in this small group highlighted that attempting this process in a larger staff group may have been even more challenging. The post-PCP meeting reflection considered that perhaps working with a smaller staff group first may have helped staff to see that it is a non-threatening process, and this may act as a step towards using a similar process with the whole staff team in the future.</p> <p>The group needed much prompting to generate a clear and specific action plan. At this point it was necessary for the authors, as facilitators, to become more directive in the process. The group were reminded that developing specific actions was important to increase the likelihood of them being carried out. The use of "who, what, where and when" questions was particularly useful, and encouraged the group to prioritise their actions so that some could begin to be carried out within the next two weeks.</p> <p>Participants were also encouraged to think about how they could support each other to carry out these actions. The actions included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> sharing the vision with all staff, parents and children</item> <p></p> <item> revising the transition policy</item> <p></p> <item> carrying out an audit of SEND resources</item> <p></p> <item> spending time reorganising storage of SEND resources</item> <p></p> <item> creating more space for interventions to take place</item> <p></p> <item> the SENCo to provide staff coaching on SMART targets i.e. targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound.</item> <p></p> <item> the SENCo to plan SEND training for the following term, particularly on social communication and specific learning needs.</item> </ulist> <p>Since the PATH meeting there have been further systemic changes within the school including the long-term absence of some key members of staff who were present at the meeting. Therefore, a date to review the PATH had to be postponed until later on in the year. However, during the authors' other visits to the school, it was evident that many of the actions from the PATH have taken place, particularly the actions relating to staff training.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-6">What could change, and what might be done differently</hd> <p>Firstly, the authors would have preferred to have the PATH meeting as a shared opportunity for all school staff interested in organisational change, and identifying new directions for SEND within the school. However, this was difficult with this particular school as there were challenging staff relationships and dynamics. In discussion with key members of staff it was thought that opening the PATH up to all staff might not be productive. Therefore, as the authors wanted to do something to initiate change for SEND, rather than not doing a PATH at all, PATH was carried out with members of the senior leadership team. As previously noted, meeting with these senior leaders did enable them to talk openly about barriers, and make a plan. Not involving all staff members meant that it might have been difficult for all staff to sign up to the actions and vision because they were not involved. Staff may also not have a shared understanding of the need for change in SEND due to not being part of the PATH process. They may have felt devalued as they were not able to be part of the process, which could lead to potential limited engagement with the vision and actions raised.</p> <p>Secondly, EPs might have been more explicit about the rationale for the order of steps in the PATH process and why one starts with the vision as the first step, followed by steps 2–5 (see Table 1). At the start of the process one member wanted to work through the PATH sequentially, and showed frustration in not being able to do so. Frustrations might have been alleviated if the authors had repeated the explanation of the philosophy behind carrying out the PATH in this order. Furthermore, it may have been advantageous to have explained the theoretical underpinnings of the PATH process in relation to humanistic psychology and the core elements of PCP (Holburn, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]) in order to increase staff's understanding and engagement.</p> <p>In addition, it was important to ensure that all members of staff were clear on timings and stayed for the duration of the PATH meeting. One participant was late, missing the explanation of some of the ground rules. Another staff member left the room for a short time, which made the process disjointed. In the future, it might be helpful for staff members to have additional discussion on the PATH process in advance of the meeting, and to have a visual set of ground rules for the process both before and during the PATH. Such rules could include: members to use active listening, being open-minded, valuing others' efforts and thoughts, allowing the facilitator to facilitate the meeting, and each member taking responsibility for the meeting's effectiveness.</p> <p>Thirdly, the EPs could have questioned further certain participants to encourage them to be more realistic about what is possible in the "One Year from Now" section. For example, one of the group members came up with a target which other members of the group considered might not be realistic.</p> <p>Three final reflections on what might be done differently are: firstly, to ensure at the end of the PATH process that there is a method of feedback to enable examination of what went well, and what could improve in the future. The feedback process could involve both quantitative and qualitative measures to enable analysis and more robust research to be carried out. A quantitative process could involve the use of rating scales on various statements; for example, how do you rate the skills of the facilitator? Qualitative questions might ask about how the PATH process is experienced. Secondly, although the authors endeavoured to review outcomes, this turned out to be anecdotal rather than systematic. It will be important to address this so that the evidence base for the value of the PATH process is strengthened in contributing to positive change. Thirdly, in the future it may be helpful to hold the PATH in a setting other than the school, which could provide a welcoming environment, yet be near enough to ensure ease of access and limit travel time. This would ensure that all members of staff are there at the correct time, with less opportunity for staff members to leave to answer a question or call that arises. Furthermore, not being within the school itself may also encourage more creative thinking, and influence staff dynamics in a positive way.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-7">Implications for EP practice</hd> <p>Before carrying out a PATH process it would be prudent for EPs to ensure that the school has positive staff relationships. As Corrigan ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>]) points out, PCP was deemed to "fit" better within certain schools (those with an inclusive culture). However, and not least from an ethical perspective, EPs should be encouraged to use PATH within schools where there may be obstacles to inclusion. Using PATH is a psychological process that could benefit all students and staff, not just those from schools that are inclusive and more receptive to the approach. Arguably, it would be beneficial for EPs to carry out a PATH meeting to encourage supportive staff relationships as a priority before using a PATH process to plan for an organisational issue, such as SEND provision within the school. However, the senior management team also need to share the view that better staff relationships are a priority.</p> <p>A further implication for EPs is that the PATH process is beneficial with two EPs, one to record responses, with the second facilitating the process. Although having two EPs is an extra demand on EP time, it means that one EP has thinking time, can help with the process and draw attention to key points which may otherwise be missed if only one EP was facilitating and writing up the PATH.</p> <p>Previous research has highlighted the importance of having a skilled facilitator, such as an EP, who can concentrate on solution-focussed questions, timekeeping, identifying strengths and outcomes, and the use of visual approaches to ensure the meetings are of high quality (White & Rae, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]). Educational psychologists are well placed to do this as, among other skills and qualities, they have a sound knowledge of solution-focussed techniques, which are useful in PCP meetings.</p> <p>Undoubtedly, an implication for EPs is to have the confidence to carry out further PATH or PCP approaches related to whole school issues. This will enable fluency to develop. As Childre and Chambers ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]) point out, after using the process once, both the teacher facilitators in their study developed ease with implementing the process and how it might be individualised in future.</p> <p>A final implication for EPs, and as noted above, is that there is a clear need to review and follow up the PATH carried out, and to review staff progress in implementing their actions towards their vision. At the end of the initial PATH a review date should be set with clear guidelines for school staff on what that meeting will entail.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-8">Implications for the school</hd> <p>An implication for both schools and EPs is that, in order to embed the use of PATH and PCP approaches within schools, EPs could provide staff with training to be facilitators as, although the facilitators in Childre and Chambers' ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]) study were teachers, caution is needed as the facilitators' skills and commitment can be the most powerful indicator of positive outcomes (Robertson et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]; Sanderson, Thompson, & Kilbane, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]). Sanderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]) state that providing people with training to be facilitators is not enough, and as Corrigan ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]) notes, maintaining the fidelity of PCP requires coaching, supervision, time and support for facilitators. Therefore, a careful plan with an identified PCP team (Sanderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]) and training model will need to be implemented within the school with EP support.</p> <p>A further implication for schools is to identify a PCP or PATH champion who is committed to following up the PCP or PATH process by reviewing the actions and keeping the PATH alive.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-9">Conclusion</hd> <p>There is currently limited research on the use of PCP in the educational context, especially in using the process with whole school issues. This article has explored how two EPs used a PATH intervention for a systemic school issue and has drawn out both the value of two EPs working together and the professional skills required. While the starting point for the work was a response to a school culture in transition, undoubtedly the process would be more effective in the context of a supportive school ethos and positive school relations.</p> <p>That said, the authors could see the potential of what was done to play a role in assisting school improvement. The benefit of conducting a PATH within a neutral environment is recognised, involving all school staff where possible, and for the EPs to provide a substantial amount of information (verbal and written) about PATH both before and during the process. In addition, there is need for a clear method of evaluative feedback for the participants about the PATH process that includes both quantitative and qualitative questions.</p> <p>At the end of the process, a PATH champion should be identified within the school, with a clear review date set, to ensure that the valuable points and goals raised during the PATH process are held in mind, and actions are carried out. Finally, this was work carried out as part of a school's service level agreement, adding to the argument that trading EP services does offer scope for work aimed at better outcomes for everyone in a school community.</p> <hd id="AN0136270828-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0136270828-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Childre, A., & Chambers, C. (2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40 (3), 217 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Corrigan, E. (2014). Person centred planning 'in action': Exploring the use of person centred planning in supporting young people's transition and re-integration to mainstream education. British Journal of Special Education, 41 (3), 268 – 288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Forest., M., Pearpoint, J., & O'Brien, J. (1996). MAPS: Educators, parents, young people and their friends planning together. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11 (4), 35 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Hayes, J. (2004). Visual annual reviews: How to include pupils with learning difficulties in their educational reviews. Support for Learning, 19 (4), 175 – 180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Holburn, S. (2002). How science can evaluate and enhance person-centred planning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27 (4), 250 – 260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Kaehne, A., & Beyer, S. (2014). Person centred reviews as a mechanism for planning the post school transition of young people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58 (7), 603 – 613.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Keyes, M., & Owens-Johnson, L. (2003). Developing person-centered IEPs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38 (3), 145 – 152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Morgan, G. (2016). Organisational change: A solution focused approach. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32 (2), 133 – 144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Pearpoint, J., O'Brien, J., & Forest, M. (1993). PATH: A workbook for planning positive, possible futures and planning alternative tomorrow s with hope for schools, organizations, businesses and families. Toronto : Inclusion Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Hatton, C., Elliott, J., McIntosh, B., Swift, P., ... Joyce, T. (2005). The impact of person centred planning. Institute for Health Research, Lancaster: Lancaster University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centred therapy. Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanderson, H. (2000). Person-centred planning: Key features and approaches. York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanderson, H., Thompson, J., & Kilbane, J. (2006). The emergence of person-centred planning as evidence-based practice. Journal of Integrated Care, 14, 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smull, M., & Harrison, S. (1992). Supporting people with severe retardation in the community. Alexandra, VA : National Institute of State Mental Retardation Program Directors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Structure of a Path explained for Participants to' Information sent to participants about PATH. Retrieved from https://inclusive-solutions.com/person-centred-planning/path/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor-Brown, M. (2012). How did young people identified as presenting with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties experience a person-centred transition review meeting? Educational and Child Psychology, 29 (3), 54 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, J., & Rae, T. (2016). Person-centred reviews and transition: An exploration of the views of students and their parents/carers. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32 (1), 38 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cerian Hughes; Georgina Maclean and Phil Stringer</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref43"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1215408
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How Person-Centred Planning Can Contribute to Organisational Change in a School
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hughes%2C+Cerian%22">Hughes, Cerian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maclean%2C+Georgina%22">Maclean, Georgina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stringer%2C+Phil%22">Stringer, Phil</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+in+Practice%22"><i>Educational Psychology in Practice</i></searchLink>. 2019 35(2):229-238.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Change%22">Organizational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Planning%22">Educational Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transitional+Programs%22">Transitional Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individualized+Transition+Plans%22">Individualized Transition Plans</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02667363.2018.1557599
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0266-7363
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article reflects on the experience of applying a person-centred approach to promote organisational change in an educational context. A detailed example is drawn from a Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH) process with a group of school staff. The article considers existing research into person-centred approaches and explores key factors that may help or hinder the effectiveness of these approaches. A number of implications for professional practice are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1215408
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1215408
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02667363.2018.1557599
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 229
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transitional Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individualized Transition Plans
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How Person-Centred Planning Can Contribute to Organisational Change in a School
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hughes, Cerian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maclean, Georgina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stringer, Phil
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0266-7363
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Psychology in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1