14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
The Role of Key Figures in Social Work, Communities and Family Networks in Mitigating Barriers to Educational Support Trajectories
Rebecca Thys, Miranda Poeze, Marie Seghers
VIVES Un. of Applied Sciences, Belgium
Presenting Author: Poeze, Miranda
Research shows that pupils with a low socio-economic status and/or migration background are less likely to receive extra support in Flanders when confronted with learning difficulties (Bodvin, Verschueren & Struyf, 2018; Struyf, Bodvin, Jacobs, 2016). This inequality concerns both the use of the available support at school as well as the use of out-of-school help (Bodvin, Verschueren & Struyf, 2019). Parents in socially vulnerable situations less often initiate care trajectories when their children are confronted with difficulties (Struyf, Bodvin, Jacobs, 2016). This can for example be due to a lack of familiarity with certain labels but also to inadequate informal support networks. Parents living in socially vulnerable conditions are not always taken seriously enough by educational professionals, for example when deviant behavior is explained as a problem of language, upbringing or culture. This mainly concerns non-Western parents who speak no or insufficient Dutch (El Boujaddayni & Berdai Chaouni, 2022). Research into cooperation between parents with a migrant background who have a child with autism and social workers indicates the prevalence of racism and discrimination in conversations with social workers, a superior attitude of social workers towards parents and a 'coercive, non-negotiable attitude' that makes parents feel that they are being put 'with their backs against the wall' (El Boujaddayni & Berdai Chaouni, 2022).
This research project aims to gain insight into the experiences and perceptions of three types of actors that are involved in the process of accessing care and support for children growing up in socially vulnerable situations: the parents, the educational professionals but also the formal key figures in social work as well as the informal key figures in communities and personal networks of the parents.
The innovative character of our research project concerns firstly the confrontation of the perspectives of both parents and teachers and other educational professionals. Research shows that parental testimonies can be of great added value in training for professionals (El Boujaddayni & Berdai Chaouni, 2022). Secondly, the innovation concerns additionally the inclusion of the perspective of the formal and informal key figures, which is the focus of the presentation at EREC24. Although our research is located in Flanders, we hope to inspire other researchers in Europe regarding the importance of this third type of actor.
In Flanders, professional social workers with an explicit assignment to strengthen the relationship between parents and the school, are increasingly present in school. These ‘bridging figures' can fulfill multiple roles, including being a confidential figure for parents, a hub in the guidance to well-being, a networker, a mediator or supporter (Seghers, Mertens, De Maegd, 2022). Research into ‘social care infrastructure in the shadow’ (Schrooten, Thys, Debruyne, 2019) shows that in addition to these official ‘bridging figures’, there are other more informal actors who take a similar role which are particularly important for groups that experience barriers to regular social work, such as ethnic minority populations. Migrant- or grass roots organizations are strongly concerned with the difficulties children and young people encounter in the educational system (Thys, 2017). The research by El Boujaddayne & Berdai Chanouni (2022) confirms the importance of support figures in the informal network of parents with a migration background. These play an important role to facilitate the contact with care providers.
By discussing the perspective of formal and informal key figures in social work, communities and family network, we aim at shedding light on resources that are often underexposed in the academic reflections on the inclusiveness of care and support for children growing up in socially vulnerable situations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur research project is practice oriented. The ultimate goal is to develop tools to strengthen parents in the access to care pathways and to sensitize and strengthen educational professionals in supporting parents from disadvantaged groups in getting access to the adequate care and support for their children.
A first step in the development of these tool concerns collecting testimonies of parents, educational professionals and of formal and informal key figures in social work, communities and informal networks of families. We collect these testimonies by doing semi-structured qualitative interviews with parents, educational professionals and key figures. We also organize focus group interviews, not so much with parents, but with educational professionals and key figures.
For at least part of the research, the innovative methodology of community researchers will be used, in which people will be trained to collect data within their own community. In this way, important barriers to access to the target groups can be bridged, due to shared language and culture and pre-existing relationships of trust. This also makes it possible to collect more in-depth data. In addition, the community researchers can help strengthening partnerships with organizations that work with the target group and with the informal key figures in communities and informal networks of the families (CLES, 2016).
In this presentation we will focus on the analysis of our qualitative data that inform us on the role of formal and informal key figures in strengthening the relationship between parents and schools and in facilitating the access for parents to adequate support and care for their children. We will present the insights regarding two of our main research questions and their according sub-questions.
1. How do formal and informal key figures experience the educational support pathways inside and outside the school for children growing up in socially vulnerable situations? What obstacles and barriers do they see with regard to educational support pathways? How do they offer support to parents? Where/how do these actors see opportunities and barriers to establish (better) cooperation between parents from disadvantaged groups and the school environment?
2. How do parents and educational professionals experience the role of the key figures? How can these experiences be taken into account to strengthen educational support in schools? To improve the collaboration between parents and professionals in the referral to care? And to improve the support for parents in the access to care pathways for their child(ren)?
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe have conducted various semi-structured interviews with key figures, educational professionals and parents. We dit two focus group interviews: one with formal key figures; one with informal key figures. In this stage we can only point to some subjects that emerged from coding the first interviews. We selected three. Firstly, the support of formal ‘bridging’ figures is differently organized across schools in Kortrijk. In some schools, social workers once or twice a week take place at the entry of the schools. In other schools, they are only consulted when a problem arises. We will further explore the relationship between this differential organizing process and the role bridging figures play in facilitating access to educational support trajectories. Secondly, problems raised by the school are discussed with close family members - also transnationally. Family networks play an important role in how the parents perceive the problem. For example, a parent who is told after one year in Belgium that her child must follow a special programm because her child would have a language delay, discusses this with her sister-in-law in the home country. She tells her to just give it some time.The mother adopts this opinion. We will further explore the role of these (transnational) family networks. Thirdly, key figures in communities often function as important gate keepers as for information circulating in communities and personal networks. An informal key figure in the Somalian community in Kortrijk tells us that the information is circulating in the community that Somalian children that attend school in Kortrijk have more difficulties as compared to those that go to school in a nearby village. We will further explore the role of informal key figures as gate keepers of information that can strengthen or weaken access to support pathways.
References-Bodvin, K., Verschueren, K., & Struyf, E. (2018). De rol van familiale achtergrond van leerlingen bij extra ondersteuning binnen en buiten de school, Welwijs, 29(4): 15-18.
-Bodvin, K., Verschueren, K., & Struyf, E. (2019). Buitenschoolse hulp naargelang familiale achtergrond: toegang en ervaringen van ouders in achtergestelde gezinnen, Tijdschrift voor orthopedagogiek, kinderpsychiatrie en klinische kinderpsychologie, 14(2): 63-76.
-Centre for Local Economic Strategies (2016). Working with community researchers. Geraadpleegd op 13 maart 2023 van CLES-Findings-5-Working-with-community-researchers.pdf
-Commissie Struyf. (2019). September, 21. Evaluatie van het nieuw ondersteuningsmodel (Report) https://onderwijs.vlaanderen.be/nl/evaluatie-van-het-ondersteuningsmodel-specifieke-onderwijsbehoeften
-El Boujaddayni, K., & Berdai Chaouni, S. (2022). Hulp aan kinderen met autisme: ‘Ouders met migratieroots moeten zich dubbel zo hard bewijzen’, Sociaal.net. Geraadpleegd op 10 maart 2023 van https://sociaal.net/achtergrond/kinderen-diverssensitieve-autismezorg/Communi-act-praten-over-ASS-in-een-superdiverse-hulpverleningscontext.pdf
-Schrooten, M., Thys, R., Debruyne, P. (2019), Sociaal schaduwwerk, over informele spelers in het welzijnslandschap, Brussel: Politeia
-Seghers, M., Mertens, C. & De Maegd, K. (2022). Welzijn zoekt onderwijs en vice versa. De brugfiguur als (hét) antwoord op de noden in en rond de scholen? Welwijs, 33(4), 4-7.
-Struyf, E., Bogaert, L., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Ondersteuning aan leerlingen met specifieke onderwijsbehoeften in het gewoon onderwijs: de tevredenheid van leerlingen, ouders, leraren en ondersteuners in kaart gebracht. Welwijs: Wisselwerking Onderwijs en Welzijnswerk, 31(3), 25-28.
-Struyf, E., Bodvin, K., & Jacobs, K. (2016). Toeleiding naar het zorgaanbod. Een onderzoek naar bestaande praktijken en verklarende factoren op kind-, gezins-en schoolniveau in het gewoon en buitengewoon onderwijs in Vlaanderen. Geraadpleegd op 4 maart 2020, van https://dataonderwijs.vlaanderen.be/onderwijsonderzoek/project/187.
-Thys, R. (2017), Opportunities, obstacles and resistances. The political participation of Brussels based Belgian Moroccan, Belgian Turkish and Belgian Congolese organisations. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
A Parenting Support Model in Irish ECEC Services: The Views of Parents and Practitioners
Catarina Leitão, Jefrey Shumba
Childhood Development Initiative, Ireland
Presenting Author: Leitão, Catarina
Supporting parents can promote positive outcomes for children’s and families’ wellbeing (European Commission, 2013). Combining parenting support with Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services can positively impact children’s development (Sheridan et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2017). ECEC services have the potential to provide families with a sense of belonging and support (Garrity & Canavan, 2017). Quality ECEC responding to the needs of children and families can drive sustainable development through its multiplier effect on children and society (Bruckauf & Hayes, 2017).
Powerful Parenting is a parenting support model implemented within ECEC services. It aims to promote positive interactions between children and their environments, in line with Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The model involves placing one Parent-Carer Facilitator (PCF) in each ECEC service, working with parents to identify needs, offer tailored support, and coordinate with other services. The support is offered to all parents accessing the ECEC services. The activities organised by the PCFs can include one-to-one meetings and group work, with parents only or parents and children. Parents’ and families’ needs inform the implemented activities, which can vary across the ECEC services. For this reason, Powerful Parenting is considered a model instead of a standardised, curriculum-based programme. It was developed by the Childhood Development Initiative (CDI), a non-governmental organisation, and has been implemented in eight ECEC services in the Dublin area, Ireland.
Powerful Parenting can be considered an innovative approach since it locates specific responsibilities and skills to a new role embedded within the ECEC system, that of the PCF, to support parents. Additionally, it combines centre- and home-based support, while many parenting support interventions in Europe and Ireland only include one of these modalities. Powerful Parenting includes elements that have been considered effective in parenting support: a focus on more than one area of need, easy access to support, continuity between universal and targeted provision, tailored support, and coordination with other services for children and families (Cadima et al., 2017; Molinuevo, 2013; Moran et al., 2004).
However, further research on factors affecting parents’ participation in supports, including those provided through ECEC services, and related outcomes, has been identified as needed (Britto et al., 2022; Cadima et al., 2017; Grindal et al., 2016). Exploring the views of parents accessing parenting support in ECEC services and the views of practitioners delivering it can contribute to informing how to promote parents’ participation and related benefits. This study aimed to collect the views of parents, PCFs, and managers of ECEC services about Powerful Parenting.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn the academic year in which the current study took place, the model was being implemented in eight ECEC services in the same Dublin area, reaching the parents of 213 children aged between three and six years old. The number of children from this age group ranged between 10 and 68 across the eight services.
Parents from all ECEC services with Powerful Parenting were invited to participate in this study with the support of PCFs (convenience sampling). The research team invited all the PCFs and managers of the same services. The participants of this study included 27 parents, eight PCFs, and seven managers (one manager coordinated two services). Regarding the participating parents, 24 were mothers and three were fathers, with children between three and six years old; at least one parent from each service with the model participated. The PCFs were female and had an average of almost six years of experience in their role, although the number of years varied widely across them (M=5.65; SD=7.19; Min= 0.75, Max=21.17). Among the managers, six were female and one was male, and they had almost 17 years of experience on average (M=16.50; SD=3.21; Min=13, Max=20).
The research team developed semi-structured interview protocols aimed at parents, PCFs, and managers. The questions focused on the organisation, utilisation, quality, satisfaction and perceived benefits regarding Powerful Parenting. All participants were interviewed by telephone or online since the study occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents were interviewed with the support of four peer researchers, who were parents living in the same area. The qualitative data were analysed by two researchers using an inductive approach, following the steps of the Thematic Analysis of Braun and Clarke (2006).
Ethics approval was obtained from the Irish Child and Family Agency’s Research and Ethics Committee. The participants' consent was collected. The data were anonymised.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRegarding parents’ views, an emerging theme referred to what parents valued regarding the Facilitators’ work. Valued aspects included PCFs showing high interest in their work and being approachable. These findings reinforced the relevance of recruiting practitioners with good interpersonal skills and high motivation, which have been recognised to positively affect the implementation of parenting supports (Cohen et al., 2020; Moran et al., 2004). Another identified valued aspect concerned PCFs’ responsiveness to parents’ needs by listening, being available, and providing tailored support. Responsiveness to families’ needs, establishing trustful relationships through mutual listening and openness, and sharing relevant content can promote a high implementation quality of parenting supports (Cadima et al., 2017; Anders et al., 2019). Parents also valued the PCF role as a central point of contact, bridging the home and the classroom. Considering Bronfenbrenner’s model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), the PCF role has the potential to promote the link between the microsystems of the family and the ECEC service.
Another identified theme emerging from parents’ views referred to perceived outcomes of the support received from the PCFs. Outcomes for parents included a better understanding of their children’s needs and how to address them, socio-emotional benefits (e.g., reduced parental stress), and facilitated access to other services.
A preliminary analysis of the PCFs' and managers’ views (the final findings will be presented at the conference) suggested that both groups of participants acknowledged the importance of listening to parents’ needs and preferences when planning activities, and considering parents’ pace. Both groups of participants highlighted the relevance of offering tailored support, including in regard to parenting, emotional wellbeing, and linking with other services for children or families.
These findings can contribute to informing the development and implementation of effective parenting supports, including through ECEC services.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Britto, P. R., Bradley, R. H., Yoshikawa, H., Ponguta, L. A., Richter, L., & Kotler, J. A. (2022). The Future of Parenting Programs: III Uptake and Scale. Parenting, 22(3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2022.2086809
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Lerner & R. M. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793 – 828). Wiley.
Bruckauf, Z., & Hayes, N. (2017). Quality of Childcare and Pre-Primary Education: How Do We Measure It? United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/2BE8313E-EN
Cadima, J., Nata, G., Evangelou, M., Anders, Y., & Parental Support ISOTIS Team. (2017). Inventory and analysis of promising and evidence-based parent- and family- focused support programs. http://www.isotis.org/resources/publications/isotis-publications
Cohen, F., Trauernicht, M., Francot, R., Broekhuizen, M., & Anders, Y. (2020). Professional competencies of practitioners in family and parenting support programmes. A German and Dutch case study. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105202. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105202
European Commission. (2013). Parenting Support Policy Brief. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=15978&langId=de
Garrity, S., & Canavan, J. (2017). Trust, responsiveness and communities of care: an ethnographic study of the significance and development of parent-caregiver relationships in Irish early years settings. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(5), 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1356546
Grindal, T., Bowne, J. B., Yoshikawa, H., Schindler, H. S., Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2016). The added impact of parenting education in early childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.018
Molinuevo, D. (2013). Parenting support in Europe. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2013/parenting-support-europe
Moran, P., Ghate, D., Van Der Merwe, A., & Policy Research Bureau. (2004). What works in parenting support? A review of the international evidence.
Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kupzyk, K. A., Edwards, C. P., & Marvin, C. A. (2011). A randomized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: The Getting Ready intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 361–383. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.001
Turner, K. M. T., Dittman, C. K., Rusby, J. C., & Lee, S. (2017). Parenting Support in an Early Childhood Learning Context. In M. R. Sanders, T. G. Mazzucchelli, M. R. Sanders, & T. G. Mazzucchelli (Eds.), The Power of Positive Parenting: Transforming the Lives of Children, Parents, and Communities Using the Triple P System (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190629069.003.0021
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Improving Educational Outcomes for Children in Care in England: Observations on National Policy and Local Practices
Neil Harrison
University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Harrison, Neil
Around 80,000 young people are ‘in care’ in England at any one time, usually due to neglect or maltreatment within the birth family (Department for Education, 2023a). This figure has been rising steadily in recent years, meaning that around 3 per cent of young people will spend some of their childhood within the care system, for example, with foster carers or in residential settings. Advances in the data available to researchers has demonstrated that educational outcomes for children in care are substantially lower than the average for the general population (Berridge et al., 2020; Sebba et al., 2015). The reasons for this are complex, but include frequent school moves, low expectations from professionals (e.g. teachers and social workers), societal stigma, trauma and associated mental ill health. Attempting to address this inequality has been a government policy objective in England for over 15 years (Department for Education and Skills, 2007). This study is focused on England, but has relevance for all European nations as the existence of care systems is universal, albeit that the configurations differ markedly between nations.
One important policy initiative has been the creation of ‘virtual schools’ for children in care – despite their name, these are not related to online learning. Rather, virtual schools are teams based within local authorities that have responsibility for the educational provision and outcomes for children in care in their area, spanning three main roles: (a) advocating on behalf of children with physical schools, local authority departments and other agencies engaged in their education and welfare, (b) administering the Pupil Premium Plus funding totalling around £154 million nationally, and (c) delivering educational enhancement services directly or indirectly to children (e.g. additional tutoring or equipment). Trialled in the late 2000s, the establishment of virtual schools effectively became a statutory responsibility from 2014 onwards (Berridge et al., 2009). They are generally led by an experienced headteacher and include a team of qualified teachers, but the exact configuration varies substantially between the 152 local authority areas in England.
There is good correlational evidence that virtual schools are collectively having a positive effect. Direct comparisons are difficult due to changing definitions and examination protocols, but there have been apparent improvements in outcomes for children in care at both age 11 and age 16 since their implementation (Department for Education, 2023a). There has also been a marked drop in permanent exclusions over this period. However, there are also marked disparities in outcomes for children in care between local authority areas that do not seem to correspond to wider deprivation or school attainment patterns (Department for Education, 2023b). Put another way, there are unexplained inequalities in the life chances of children in care living in different areas.
This paper will report findings from a study commissioned by the KPMG Foundation to determine why ostensibly similar young people can have very different patterns of educational outcomes and what steps can be taken to improve the effectiveness of virtual schools (Harrison et al., 2023a). The study was framed around the following research questions:
- RQ1: How do virtual schools understand effectiveness within their work, including markers of success at the organisational and individual child level?
- RQ2: How does the apparent effectiveness of virtual schools with respect to educational outcomes for children in care vary between local authorities?
- RQ3: What relationships exist between the environmental and organisational contexts of a virtual school and its apparent effectiveness?
- RQ4: What elements of effective practice in virtual schools can be identified?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was conceived and conducted as a mixed methods enquiry, combining statistical analysis of data about virtual schools and local authorities with group interviews with virtual school heads (VSHs) and other practitioners with expert knowledge of virtual schools. In this paper, we will concentrate solely on the findings from the VSHs. The study drew on the British Educational Research Association’s 2018 guidance for ethical practice and received ethical clearance from the relevant universities.
The study was delivered in partnership with the National Association of Virtual School Heads (NAVSH) who assisted with recruiting participants through their membership. We sought participants to provide coverage across the English regions and spanning different types of local authority (e.g. urban vs. rural and large vs. small). We secured the participation of 25 VSHs, thereby comprising around one-sixth of the total population. While the participants were self-selecting, they were broadly representative of the profession as a whole.
We arranged six online focus groups using Microsoft Teams. These were scheduled for one hour, although several lasted slightly longer in order to bring the discussions to conclusion. The questions used were developed from the first phase of expert interviews and the initial stage of statistical analysis. They primarily focused on concepts of effectiveness, the configuration of virtual schools and organisational relationships. The discussions were framed to have a strong focus on practice and barriers to improving outcomes for children in care.
The automated transcription facility in Microsoft Teams was initially used, followed by manual checking. Framework analysis (Kiernan and Hill, 2018) was used to analyse the transcripts, reflecting the close questioning about policy and practice used in the focus groups. This is a primarily deductive approach to analysis where the main themes of interest are predetermined by the focus of the study, although there is an opportunity for novel themes to emerge inductively. The findings were constructed through a process of indexing key extracts of data within these themes and developing interpretations with reference to the known practice and policy context. These interpretations were then discussed with the NAVSH Board to ensure their accuracy and relevance to practice.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur principal conclusion was that the effectiveness of virtual schools – and thus outcomes for children in care – were subject to challenges and pressures that interact to create a form of unequal ‘postcode lottery’. In other words, the localised educational ecosystem, largely outside of the direct control of the virtual school, had a strong influence on the ability of children in care to achieve to their potential. These challenges were typically felt by all virtual schools, but to widely varying degrees.
One of the most profound challenges arose from relationships with local physical schools. The rapid growth in academisation, whereby schools are largely outside of state control, now provides high levels of autonomy over admissions and exclusions. VSHs described some schools as ‘no-go areas’ for children in care, despite national policy affording them priority. Many schools were felt to actively resist admitting children who were viewed as likely to have mental health difficulties or to be low achieving, often leaving them without a school place for protracted periods. Even once admitted, VSHs reported that some schools were overly quick to seek exclusions based on minor infractions.
Another challenge related to the complexity of national regulations around funding support for special educational needs. With around 75 percent of children in care requiring such support to engage with education (Harrison et al., 2023b), this is a particularly pressing issue for virtual schools. In particular, VSHs discussed how some young people were left without the support they needed for protracted periods due to lengthy negotiations around funding.
The paper will reflect on the tensions between national policy, which sees outcomes for children in care as a priority, and local practices, which often undermines or directly conflicts with the national aims. Recommendations for national policy development to mitigate these tensions will be summarised.
ReferencesBerridge, D., L. Henry, S. Jackson and D. Turney (2009) Looked after and learning: evaluation of the virtual school head pilot. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Berridge, D., Luke, N., Sebba, J., Strand, S., Cartwright, M., Staples, E., Mc Grath-Lone. L., Ward, J. and O’Higgins, A. (2020) Children in need and children in care: educational attainment and progress. Bristol/Oxford: University of Bristol and Rees Centre.
Department for Education (2023a) Children looked after in England including adoption: 2022 to 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption-2022-to-2023.
Department for Education (2023b) Local authority interactive tool (LAIT), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-interactive-tool-lait.
Department for Education and Skills (2007) Care matters: time for change. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Harrison, N., J. Sebba, M. Wigley, R. Pryor and F. Blyth (2023a) Improving the effectiveness of virtual schools, Exeter: University of Exeter.
Harrison N., J. Dixon, D. Sanders-Ellis, J. Ward and P. Asker (2023b) Care leavers’ transition into the labour market in England. Oxford: Rees Centre.
Kiernan, M. and M. Hill (2018) Framework analysis: a whole paradigm approach, Qualitative Research Journal 18(3): 248-261.
Sebba, J., D. Berridge, N. Luke, J. Fletcher, K. Bell, S. Strand, S. Thomas, I. Sinclair and A. O’Higgins (2015) The educational progress of looked after children in England: linking care and educational data. Oxford/Bristol: Rees Centre and University of Bristol.
|
