- Navigation menu list for the main sections in this web site
- What we do
- Get involved
- Help and advice
- News and views
- Donate
A research project carried out by the NSPCC Child Protection Research Group in association with the Council for Disabled Children, funded by the Community Fund.
Safeguarding disabled children in residential special schools (PDF, 862KB)
This is a research initiative to promote the care and protection of disabled children living away from home. The project worked with residential special schools for children with severe and multiple physical and learning disabilities, to examine child protection policies and practice. It aimed at identifying and describing good practice models for child welfare and protection. These will be incorporated into practice guidelines to be available for management, staff training and practice development. Findings will also be used to prepare a guide to inform parents on standards of child protection safeguards they should be able to expect while their children are at residential school.
Disabled children are among those most likely to spend time in residential institutions. The single largest category of disabled children living away from home - and therefore the primary focus of the proposed work - is children with a variety of complex physical and learning disabilities attending residential special schools.
The issue of the protection from abuse of disabled children living in residential settings has received much less attention than the protection of children 'looked after' by local authorities. The paucity of research in this field reflects the low priority often given to the needs of disabled children, and the myth that disabled children are unlikely to be abused. Yet there is evidence, from accounts by disabled adults of their childhood, and from research and practice experience, to suggest that disabled children are at increased risk of abuse.
The study focused on two aspects of life in residential special schools: child protection procedures and practice. The former covered the existence of policy statements and systems to prevent abuse, or to deal with suspected incidents; the latter examined the way in which procedures and policies were implemented in day to day care. Eleven schools altogether helped in various stages of the research. The work included periods of interviewing, observation, and analysis of documentary material in schools in the local authority, voluntary and private sectors. Schools were primarily those for children with severe, multiple disabilities including severe learning disabilities. However a small number of schools for children with single, or less severe, disabilities were included, to establish the broader context in which schools operate, and to identify ways in which the needs of schools for multiple disabled children may differ from those of other schools.
Managers, governors/trustees, head teachers and a selection of other staff were interviewed in each school. Group discussion with parents explored their perceptions of children's welfare and safety. To obtain children's perspectives we held group meetings with pupils in two schools for children with less severe disabilities.
During fieldwork a period of up to a week was spent in each school, in which the researchers were involved as much as possible in the life of the school, sharing in its daily tasks, routines and activities. The use of participant observation enabled the researchers to experience the school life alongside the children and adults who live and work there.
In all schools the degree of commitment to and concern about the progress, happiness and safety of the students was notable. Staff were continuously grappling with the need to find a balance between ensuring children's safety and giving them a flexible and stimulating environment.
Some important issues that emerged were those connected with child protection awareness and procedures, training, communication with children, the management of children and adolescents' sexuality and need for affection, and behaviour management.
Schools with high awareness and good practice had explicit whistle blowing procedures, combined with an open 'no blame' culture and good staff support. Where there was a more rigid, hierarchical approach, poor practice could be found. Schools did not always get the degree of support and awareness of child protection issues and disability that they should have been able to expect from external services, including child protection services. Recording and reporting practice varied considerably within and across schools.
All schools offered in service training and most staff felt that they had generally good training opportunities, but availability of external training and appropriate specialist training for child protection and related topics, suitable for children with severe and multiple disabilities, was rarely available.
Many examples of good practice were found in all schools, and staff had developed a wide variety of means of communication with children who had limited or no speech, but some examples of very poor practice (for example staff ignoring children, talking across children, or discussing their behaviour and personal details in front of other children) were also found. There was a strong feeling expressed that child protection concerns were much harder to address because of the child protection services' and legal system attitudes to disabled children and to children whose communication was non verbal.
This was the area that schools found most difficult, with both guidance and practice varying considerably within and between schools. Staff often felt ill prepared. They sometimes ignored their own schools' guidance on showing physical affection, because it seemed to them at variance with common sense, or to deny children's need for affectionate touch, when they are away from home and may spend most of the year at school. On the other hand, in several schools little guidance was available to deal with children's developing sexuality, especially with the older adolescents, leading to age-inappropriate behaviour which made both students and staff vulnerable.
Many pupils in the schools exhibited very challenging behaviour. Schools which specialised in providing for these children showed expertise and good practice, having understanding of the causes and triggers for difficult behaviour, with individual behaviour management plans, agreed with appropriate specialist advice, ratified by senior staff, and well communicated between all staff working with the child. Schools where few children displayed such behaviour were much less well prepared, and there were some worrying examples of poor practice, especially in the use of physical restraint.
Results from this research strongly endorse the conclusions from the many recent public enquiries into residential services, that close involvement of senior managers in day to day care, with strong leadership and support, are the best safeguards for good practice. External support from community child protection and training services is also important but provision of both were much more variable.
Bookmark this page:
Copyright © 2011 NSPCC - All rights reserved. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Weston House, 42
Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH. Incorporated by Royal Charter. Registered charity number 216401. NSPCC, charity registered in Scotland, charity number SC037717.