3. Inadequate ‘post incident investigation' and analysis of incidents that happened; failure to 'learn' from experiences...
Post incident investigation is a fundamental aspect of Behaviour Management.
The objective of Post incident investigation is to find out why an adverse incident happened, so as to learn how to prevent a re-occurrence.
(i.e. What stimulated / provoked / precipitated / triggered / or otherwise contributed to the inappropriate behaviour. Who was involved? What was happening? Who did/said what? What had happened earlier that may have influenced the outcome? Was there an underlying cause?)
Recording the facts in detail makes it possible to, over time, identify patterns of behaviour.
Subsequent action may include:
• ensuring all members of staff appreciate that the occurrence of an adverse incident represents a failure to have intervened earlier (i.e. to prevent escalation.)
• ensuring all members of staff who have responsibility for the child are aware of the child's sensitivities and the conditiions and situations that need to be avoided
• ensuring all members of staff who have responsibility for the child can recognise early the 'warning signs' that signal misbehaviour is imminent
• ensuring all members of staff who have responsibility for the childand are suitablly equipped with appropriate strategies to intervene and successfully prevent escalation;
• teaching the child an alternative, suitable response.
Adopting this approach helps to ensure that early and preventative intervention is the norm. It also reduces the incidence of extreme behaviours.
What information about Josie was already known?
Prior to Josie arriving at Ringwood School, it had been established that certain conditions greatly increased the likelihood of Josie behaving inappropriately, for example, when she is tired, hungry, rushed; is experiencing 'sensory overload' and/or frustration; if she feels threatened, insulted or humiliated; when she is facing a need to suddenly change task without prior warning; and if she's confronted by a new challenge – especially one that she thinks she can't accomplish first time!
It was also known that if Josie is having difficulty with a task she is likely to switch her focus (strongly) on doing something else - usually something that she could accomplish easily and (quickly) get rewarded with reassuring praise.
It had also been determined from experience that (by far and away) the best strategy to adopt in the event of Josie behaving unco-operatively, was to employ a suitable 'distraction' (perhaps involving temporary withdrawal from the lesson) and then patiently encouraging her to re-engage with the task that she was retreating from.
It had also become evident that simply insisting that she stay 'on task' was likely to result in her digging her heels in and escalating the level of misbehaviour.
Josie had also demonstrated a tendency to react badly (pinching, scatching and even biting) if she finds herself on the receiving end of a message (verbal or non verbal) from a peer that she interprets as derogatory, demeaning, disrespectful etc.
It was also abundantly clear, from the extensive history of incidents, that 'unstructured time' was 'high risk' in terms of the likelihood of adverse incidents happening (i.e. before and after school, break and lunchtimes and between classes.) Hence, the need for 'close supervision' at these times.
Ringwood school completely ignored the information that had been gained from previous experiences, in so far as, a series of incidents that were highly predictable were not prevented. And, no effort seemed to be made by the school to find out why the incidents had happened.
The reports that we (Josie's parents) received of incidents usually (and very frustratingly) just said "for no apparent reason, Josie scratched so and so".
When I questioned why the Teaching Asssistants (supposedly) assigned to support Josie 1:1 weren't able to intervene to prevent incidents and why, if they were watching, couldn't they say how or why the incident had happened - I got this incredible response from the Headteacher, Chris Edwards: "Providing 1:1 support does not mean it is always 'exclusively' so..."
At a meeting with school officials on Wednesday 29th November 2006, I expressed my concern that:
• When an incident happened, no real effort seemed to be made to establish why the incident happened (the underlying cause, trigger, contributory factors etc.)
• Nothing seemed to be being learned (by anyone) from incidents that happened - despite the similarity (and predictability) of the incidents that were occurring.
• No 'proactive' steps seemed to be taken by the school to help Josie learn how to behave properly in situations she found challenging and, as a consequence, Josie wasn't learning how to behave appropriately.
• The ineffectiveness of the 'strategies' being employed by the school were having a detrimental effect on Josie's social skills development - and enhancing the probability that further incidents would occur in the future.
Mr Himmel, Head of Year, said it was his responsibility to investigate adverse outcome incidents. When I asked him whether he had identified any triggers or any pattern to the incidents that had recently happened, he said he hadn't. I then went through the various incidents with him and highlighted how they could have been predicted and prevented. He accepted what I'd said and agreed to do his best to properly investigate any future incidents.