Person centred planning ‘in action’: exploring the use of person centred planning in supporting young people's transition and re-integration to mainstream education

Person centred planning ‘inaction’: exploring the use ofperson centred planning insupporting young people’stransition and re-integration tomainstream educationEmma Corrigan

This study, by Emma Corrigan of the Plymouth Excellence Cluster andCommunity Psychology Service, explores the use of person centredplanning (PCP) in supporting young people who have experiencedschool exclusion, in their transition and re-integration to mainstreamsettings. Young people of different ages participated in the PCP processand multiple stakeholder perspectives provided insight into the imple-mentation and outcomes of PCP over time. Reported findings indicate apositive impact upon young people’s social-emotional well-being,attendance in school, and educational achievement, and highlight arange of ‘supports’ and ‘barriers’ that can facilitate and/or obstruct theuse of PCP in practice. This research contributes towards practice-based evidence at a time when legislative reform advocates a broaderuse of PCP to support special educational needs in the UK. Potentialgains, pitfalls and further actions are considered to support a widerapplication of PCP within the new statutory framework and to informimplications for future practice and further research.

Key words: person centred planning, transition, re-integration

bs_bs_banner

PERSON CENTRED PLANNING

© 2014 NASENDOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12069

IntroductionPurposePerson centred approaches (encompassing person centred planning, tools, strat-egies, and techniques) originated in the USA and Canada over 30 years ago, tosupport adults with disabilities in overcoming barriers to inclusion and participa-tion. Person centred planning (PCP) aims to support individuals by eliciting theirpersonal perspectives on what is important to them, in order to facilitate theirfuller inclusion in society (Murray & Sanderson, 2007). This study aims toexplore the use of PCP in supporting young people who have experienced schoolexclusion, in their school transition/re-integration to mainstream settings. Thisaims to contribute to knowledge, understanding and practice informed by evi-dence, in the current climate of special educational needs reform when a broaderuse of PCP is being proposed (DfE, 2013a).

ContextIn the UK, person centred approaches have gained growing recognition across thecontexts of health, social care, and education. In 2001, the Department of Healthpublished a White Paper (Valuing People; DoH, 2001), a central component ofwhich required Learning Disability Partnership Boards to introduce PCP. ThePutting People First agenda (DoH, 2007) referred to person centred approachessupporting adults in social care, and PCP featured as part of the transitions reviewprocess supporting young people with a disability, in their transition from chi-ldren’s to adult services (DCSF, 2008). The shift towards a wider application ofPCP within education was evident in 2010, when the Department of Healthpublished advice for using person centred thinking, planning, and reviews inschools (DoH, 2010).

The need for special educational needs reform has underpinned current propo-sals for change to strengthen statutory processes and systems (Draft Code ofPractice; DfE, 2013a). This follows a series of critical reviews, including that ofthe UK Government Audit Commission (2002). Educational Statementswere described in the audit as providing ‘little value in helping to meet achild’s needs’, as involving a ‘stressful and alienating’ process for parents, andas a system that lacks monitoring of progress over time (Audit Commission,2002).

A review of statutory processes by Ofsted (2010) explored young people’s wisheswhen planning for their future. This highlighted key themes related to positiverelationships, choice, independence, and control. However, when parents wereasked about their children’s experiences of special educational needs support and

© 2014 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2014 269

processes, they were reported as being ‘forthright that the current system was nothelping their children adequately to achieve these goals’ (Ofsted, 2010).

A lack of pupil voice and participation within current systems has also led toclaims that ‘more realism and effort’ is needed to find ways to elicit youngpeople’s views of education and for this to contribute to educational planningand decision-making (Norwich & Kelly, 2004). The Draft Special EducationalNeeds Code of Practice (DfE, 2013a) sets out a series of changes to improvestatutory systems and support; key areas identified relate to improved pupil andparental voice and participation, and more effective collaborative working andmonitoring of progress. The draft code states that there ‘must’ be regard toyoung people’s and parents’ views and participation, and refers directly to‘person centred planning’ approaches being used to ‘ensure that parents, chil-dren and young people are genuinely involved in all aspects of planning anddecision making’ (DfE, 2013a).

The code also refers to PCP tools and ‘one-page profiles’ to ensure that‘EHC [Education and Health Care] plans are developed with the children, youngpeople and parents, and reflect aspirational and achievable outcomes’ (DfE,2013a).

This current research study uses a person centred planning (PCP) formatadapted from the Essential Lifestyle Planning framework (Smull, Sanderson,Sweeney et al., 2005) that involves a ‘guided process’ for discovering what isimportant to a person and developing a plan to enable it to happen. This is oneof a number of PCP models (MAPS: Forest, Pearpoint & O’Brien, 1996; PATH:Pearpoint, O’Brien & Forest, 1993) that aim to facilitate flexible and collabo-rative action planning, where the professionals involved in supporting individ-uals can draw upon a range of tools to tailor support appropriately and respondto individual need. During the PCP meetings all documentation is made visuallyaccessible, often including large posters on the wall to display and record infor-mation (graphics and photos are often used).

In this study, children and young people who had experienced prior schoolexclusion were invited to participate with PCP to support their forthcomingeducational transition/re-integration. Educational psychologists adopted therole of ‘Facilitator’, chairing PCP meetings with the young people and/ortheir nominated ‘Champion’. The Champion elicited the young people’sviews in preparation for the meeting, and was their advocate and supportthroughout.

270 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2014 © 2014 NASEN

Literature reviewPCP: key principlesPCP embraces a humanistic perspective that emphasises choice, growth, andconstructive fulfilment (Rogers, 1951) and principles of equality, empowerment,and collaboration (Sanderson, 2000). Existing literature has identified ‘coreelements’ of PCP (Holburn, 2002) that refer to placing individuals at the centre ofplanning and decision-making; creating a shared vision for the future; identifyingstrengths and support needs; building relationships and community connections;developing action plans (with a set review date); and establishing accountabilityand follow-up.

PCP in educationSome local authorities in the UK (Aston, 2005, cited in Aston & Lambert, 2010)have used person centred tools such as ‘Making Action Plans’ (MAPS) (Forest etal., 1996) and ‘Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope’ (PATH) (Pearpoint etal., 1993) to support more authentic student involvement and participation. Alimited evidence base within educational contexts indicates that PCP can improvecollaboration, participation, engagement, and enjoyment during the actual‘meeting’ (Hayes, 2004), as well as influence positive longer-term outcomes foryoung people through person centred individual educational plans (Keyes &Owens-Johnson, 2003).

Hayes (2004) explored the use of ‘visual’ annual reviews originating from anadaptation of the MAP (Making Action Plans) approach to support a Year 6 childidentified with ‘moderate learning difficulties’ in her transition to a mainstreamschool. All of the adults involved (parent, school staff, educational psychologist,and local authority support teacher) rated the review as ‘very good’ (the highestpossible rating) and thought that it was an improvement on previous reviews. TheSENCo reported that it was ‘far more child-centred and relevant to the pupil’. Thepupil’s views, which were elicited throughout, referred to liking ‘the pictures’ andthe positive things people recorded. Though based on a single case study, thisprovides encouraging findings, which the author interpreted as indicating a needto ‘further evaluate this tool with a larger number of reviews’ and to monitoroutcomes and implementation of plans.

Taylor-Brown (2012) focused specifically upon eliciting young people’s experi-ences of a person centred transition meeting. Three young people attending aspecialist school for pupils with social, emotional, and behavioural difficultieshad PCP reviews carried out as part of the Year 9 annual review of their Statementof special educational needs. All boys reported experiencing a positive meeting


and referred to the process as ‘better’ than traditional review meetings(Taylor-Brown, 2012). Findings referred to ‘reduced power imbalances’ thatfacilitated greater participation of the boys and their families. However, thisresearch did not explore the views of parents/carers or professionals; furthermore,it did not focus on potential barriers to implementing PCP in practice or monitoroutcomes for the young people over time.

RationaleThe Draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfE, 2013a) aims toimprove how young people and their parents and carers are involved in decision-making and educational planning, and proposes the wide scale use of PCPapproaches. However, there is a lack of research that reports impact measures ofperson centred planning within education, or reflects the views of different stake-holders who have experienced PCP. In particular, researching with young peoplewho have experienced school exclusion and PCP seems to be an unexploredarea. To address this gap, the research aims of this study were twofold: first, toexplore all stakeholder views and experiences of PCP during its context ofuse; and second, to explore reported outcomes over time for young peoplepost-transition.

MethodologyResearch designAn action research methodology was utilised to provide a framework for evalu-ating PCP based on principles of empowerment and professional collaboration(Carr & Kemmis, 1986). The study explored the views of all key stakeholders,capturing their experiences to generate greater understanding of the use of PCPwithin this transition context, to influence improvements in local practice and toinform implications for a broader use of PCP.

This study was longitudinal and involved data collection at two time points: at theend of the PCP meeting (the first meeting) and then at the agreed review meeting(all review dates were agreed by the group and fell within a range of six to 19weeks after the first PCP meeting) to explore reported outcomes for each youngperson post-transition. In addition, individual targets that were set at the originalPCP meeting were then re-visited at the review meetings.

Throughout the research process, the young people were supported in contribut-ing their views by a personal advocate with whom they had chosen to work. Themethodology therefore adopted a stance that ‘explored with’ (Fulcher, 1995) andengaged young people in the process of positive change (Ravet, 2007).


ParticipantsSix young people (five male, one female) aged between five and 15 years partici-pated in this study (two in mainstream schools, four in alternative provision) ininner city and suburban areas in the south-west of England. This research isconcerned with exploring each individual’s perspective of his or her experiencesas opposed to focusing on prescribed labels or categories of need and difficulty.Young people were approached by professionals who were aware of their forth-coming educational transition and who were already supporting the young peoplewithin their settings and within the education authority. In this way the samplingwas opportunistic.

In total, 43 adults were involved in this study; this included parents, school/settingstaff, multi-agency professionals, and educational psychologists, who formed thenetwork to support young people using PCP. Two young people also invited afriend to attend the meeting.

Ethical clearance and informed parental consent was gained throughout and nonames or identifiable information has been used in this research. It was empha-sised that each young person and adult participant could stop, withdraw or‘change their mind’ if he or she did not want to continue at any time (100%participation was gained throughout). However, for one young person, the PCPreview meeting took place outside of the research timescales and therefore thesedata have not been included in the analysis.

Questionnaire: at the end of the PCP meetingAll those present at the PCP meeting were asked to complete a questionnaireexploring their experiences, immediately after the meeting. The ‘core elements’ ofPCP (Holburn, 2002) were considered in the context of school transition/re-integration and developed into 11 rating response questions to explore howparticipants in this study had experienced different aspects of the PCP process.These were presented using a five-point Likert scale, an example of whichis: Positive relationships have been strengthened (‘strongly agree’–‘stronglydisagree’).

Open-ended questions provided qualitative data for thematic analysis and focusedon positive/useful or negative/constructive reflections, and the extent to which thePCP process was deemed effective for supporting transition and re-integration.

Questionnaire: at the end of the PCP review meetingAll those present at the review meeting were asked to complete a questionnaireimmediately after the meeting exploring their perceptions of progress and impact,


at an individual child level, following the young person’s transition/re-integration.Rating response questions relating to ‘essential outcomes’ (using the same five-point scale) were derived from the PCP literature (Michaels & Ferrara, 2006;O’Brien, 1987) to explore people’s views of perceived progress over time. Thekey areas referred to presence, participation, positive relationships, respect, andcompetence. Open-ended questions provided qualitative data for thematic analy-sis and focused on gaining examples of young people’s development across theoutcome areas.

A tool for targeting, monitoring and evaluationAt the ‘action plan’ stage of the PCP meeting, a framework for monitoring andevaluating progress against individual targets, based on principles of goal attain-ment scaling (King, McDougall, Palisano et al., 2000), was used by the Facilitator.This is consistent with a ‘plan, do, review’ framework (Dunsmuir, Brown,Iyadurai et al., 2009) and involved the Facilitator establishing with the group (withor without the young person being present, dependent on his or her preference) abaseline descriptor level and rating for each personal target area and a definedexpected rating. The Facilitator ensured a group consensus and the group collec-tively decided on the future review date.

At the review meetings, the Facilitators then gained the attained (actual) levels foreach target that had been set. Each target had three possible outcomes, indicatingthe extent to which all attendees perceived that the target had been achieved.

In summary, the overall analysis examined stakeholder views and perceptionsaccording to the following strands:

1. ratings analysis – analysis of ratings related to the ‘core elements’ and‘essential outcomes’ of PCP to explore participants’ experiences of PCPand perceived progress at an individual child level across key outcomeareas;

2. thematic analysis exploring multiple stakeholder perceptions of the use ofPCP and its perceived effectiveness in supporting progress post-transition/re-integration;

3. analysis of Target Monitoring and Evaluation (TME) to identify growth atan individual target level over time.

Exploring stakeholders’ views and experiences of PCPRatings analysis of PCP ‘core elements’: across stakeholder groupsAnalysis of all ratings across stakeholder groups provides an overview ofstakeholders’ perceptions of the PCP process (see Table 1). The proportion of


combined ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ ratings across all items (89%) compared tothe combined ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ ratings (2%) and ‘neutral’ ratings(9%) clearly indicates participants’ positive overall views about the PCP process.The low level of negative ratings and the absence of any dominant negative trendindicates that no single item or area of PCP was experienced negatively.

Ratings analysis of PCP ‘core elements’: by stakeholder groupsThe combined ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ ratings across all items for eachstakeholder group indicated positive and consistent ratings for young people,parents and Facilitators. For these stakeholder groups, there was no single item orarea that was experienced negatively. However, for both school staff and multi-agency staff, there were particular areas that received lower ratings. For schoolstaff this related to ‘student and family needs have been fully considered’ (73%indicated that they ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’) and for multi-agency staff, ‘posi-tive relationships have been strengthened’ (40% indicated that they ‘stronglyagree’ or ‘agree’). These lower ratings are explored further in the followingsection.

Thematic analysisThematic analysis indicated key themes pertaining to stakeholders’ experiencesof PCP, as represented in Figure 1.

All stakeholder groups expressed support for the view that PCP enabled the childor young person to be fully involved in his or her transition planning. Widespreadreflections referred to the inclusiveness of PCP in understanding and supportingthe young person’s needs and also to the empowering nature of ‘preparing toplan’, resulting in increased student engagement and ownership. Parents andprofessionals expressed the view that the process ‘enables the child to have avoice, to be seen as an individual, accepted’. Young people referred to greater

Table 1: Overall number of responses across ‘core element’ ratings for allparticipants (across stakeholder groups) (N = 45)

1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

219 (50%) 171 (39%) 37 (9%) 7 (2%) 0

Note: * Total rating responses = 434.


choice and participation, for example: ‘People know who I am, lots more has beenup to me, I have been able to choose things.’

All stakeholder groups referred to the benefits of focusing on ‘what works’,creating a positive climate that promotes co-operation and collaboration withthe young person at the centre. Examples of these reflections include thefollowing:

‘Lovely atmosphere, even those who might have been negative were drawninto the positive nature of the process.’

(Champion)

‘An excellent way to gain the bigger picture of a child . . . The positivity has. . . meant that hopefulness, clarity and creative thinking have been key . . .outcomes.’

(Facilitator)

‘Encouraged bringing together multiple perspectives.’(school staff)

Figure 1: Key themes of stakeholders’ experiences of PCP

• Capturing the fullpicture

• Suppor ng widerneeds

• Joint working• Valuing everyone’scontribu on in ac on

planning

• Valuing the youngperson’s strengths• Suppor ng equal

voice

• Young person at thecentre of process

• Young person beinglistened to and

understoodChild centred

approachPosi ve and

hopeful

Understandingof needs

Collabora veplanning


The distinctiveness of PCP, in terms of how it compared favourably to othertransition meetings, was reflected across all stakeholder groups, with reference tothe positive child-focused nature of the meeting and the less formal atmospherethat was created. The use of flip chart paper was thought to promote a moreinteractive and discursive climate and provide a useful visual representation,making it feel ‘more like the child’s meeting’ and ‘reducing power imbalances asless of professionals doing all the talking’. Young people referred to ‘likingwriting up on the flip chart’.

Areas identified as less effective, or needing to be strengthened, referred to thequality of ‘action planning’, which was described on one occasion as ‘verygeneral’, needing to be ‘more strongly chaired’ and also as ‘not crossing over intoother areas’ to reflect the young person’s needs within their home environment.Multi-agency staff referred to this as limiting opportunities for collaborativeworking and building stronger relationships.

In addition, on one occasion, a young person referred to a lack of support duringthe PCP meeting, feeling that there were ‘too many questions at me’. The impactof people not attending a PCP meeting was also made evident: ‘Very sad that therewas no teacher who knew the young person representing him from his primaryschool’ (alternative provision staff).

Although the negative reflections were mainly related to isolated examples,members of staff from one mainstream secondary school did collectively reflectnegatively on their experience of PCP after the initial meeting. References relatedto the process being overly time-consuming, less efficient, and less effective thanexisting practices, and failing to focus sufficiently on the young person’s historyof difficulties. Furthermore, widespread reflections across school and multi-agency staff referred to the time-consuming nature of the process after the initialPCP meeting.

Exploring reported progress for young people post-transitionRatings analysis of PCP ‘essential outcomes’: across stakeholder groupsAnalysis of all rating responses across stakeholder groups provides an overviewof stakeholders’ assessments of the pupils’ progress in terms of the outcomeareas. The proportion of combined ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ ratings (77%)compared to the combined ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ ratings (3%) and‘neutral’ ratings (20%) indicates positive overall findings of perceived outcomes,as represented in Table 2.


The ratings analysis indicates that overall, progress deemed most positive overtime (with the highest combined ‘strongly agree’/‘agree’ ratings) relates toimproved ‘presence’ in the school community and strengthening in ‘positiverelationships’.

The low proportion of ‘disagree’ ratings (N = 3) and absence of any dominantnegative trend indicates that no single outcome area has been negatively experi-enced. However, the increase in ‘neutral’ ratings does indicate a lack of develop-ment (positive or negative) reported across all areas.

Ratings analysis of PCP ‘essential outcomes’: by stakeholder groupsThe combined ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ ratings for each stakeholder groupindicates a high and consistent rating for all stakeholders for the areas of ‘pres-ence’, ‘participation’ and ‘positive relationships’. However, greater disparity wasevident across the areas of ‘respect’ and ‘competence’. Young people rated pro-gress in the area of ‘competence’ as their lowest rating (only one out of the fourrated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’) in contrast to parents and school staff who ratedthis area of progress more positively (75% of parents and 88% of school staff).Conversely, both parents and school staff rated progress in the area of ‘respect’ asbeing lower than the ratings of the young people.

Targeting, monitoring and evaluation (TME) frameworkThe TME data collected involved two targets being set for each young person atthe ‘action planning’ stage of their PCP meeting that were then re-visited at their‘review’ meetings. This information is summarised in Table 3 and indicates thatfor all young people, targets were deemed to have been met either ‘at’ the expectedlevel or ‘above’ the expected level. Furthermore, the target areas encompassed arange of social, emotional and learning goals, as they related to young peopledeveloping a sense of safety, security and confidence; managing their feelings;

Table 2: Overall number of responses across ‘essential outcome’ ratingsfor all participants (across stakeholder groups) (N = 18)

1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

34 (38%) 35 (39%) 18 (20%) 3 (3%) 0

Note: * Total rating responses = 90.


improving peer interaction skills; improving participation in ‘unstructured’ times,and increasing school attendance and engagement in learning tasks.

Thematic analysisThematic analysis has indicated key themes relating to stakeholders’ qualitativereflections, from the questionnaires at the end of the review meetings. The threekey themes – support and understanding, progress and achievement, and engage-ment and motivation – are represented as overlapping and interconnected. Illus-trative examples of the comments made in the questionnaires are shown below,under key theme, and sub-themes.

Table 3: Target, monitoring and evaluation (TME) targets and ratings

Target details

Expected achievementlevel

Below At Above

Young person A1 To feel confident to go in the classroom Yes2 To make new friends YesYoung person B1 Will manage his feelings in the classroom Yes2 To be engaged in suitable learning tasks and feel that

he can cope with themYes

Young person C1 To feel safe and secure in sharing concerns with key

adults at new secondary schoolYes

2 To feel able to manage unstructured times of the day atsecondary school with prompting from key adults

Yes

Young person D1 To feel secure and confident when starting secondary

school in September 2012Yes

2 To have a timetable in September with which he feelscomfortable

Yes

Young person E1 To re-engage with part-time curriculum in school and

off-site educational activitiesYes

2 To reduce swearing in school Yes


Key theme 1: support and understanding

• ‘I’m more settled now as can leave lessons to see Mr x and have thementor room that I can go to . . . some teachers help as they talk andlisten’ (young person).

• positive relationships: ‘He has developed a positive relationship with bothteachers and he responds well to them’ (multi-agency staff ).

• tailored and individualised approaches: ‘Teaching Assistants have managedto control behaviour with strategies in the classroom’ (parent).

• identifying and responding to needs: ‘School are pre-empting tricky times. . . engagement and behaviour can be affected by incidents out of collegefrom home’ (school staff ).

Key theme 2: engagement and motivation

• ‘Decided to join in more – rather than watching football, I now play, amjoining in piano and PE’ (young person).

• keen to attend and participate: ‘Joining in everything in lessons and alsogo to badminton, youth club and scouts’ (young person).

• willingness to try and ‘have a go’: ‘Doesn’t moan now, he wants to go toschool in the mornings . . . He’s been an eager beaver’ (parent).

• sense of belonging: ‘Is now full time attending school and has lunch/assemblies with school’ (school staff ); ‘Has participated with all aspectsof school’ (multi-agency staff).

Key theme 3: progress and achievement

• ‘Now thinking to do things, learning’s been better . . . literacy is betterthan it was, I’m concentrating more’ (young person).

• ‘Phonics and written work seem to have made huge progress’ (multi-agency staff ).

• Progress across academic learning and social-emotional development: ‘Ina relatively short time frame, he has made progress with telling the timeand is proud of this achievement . . . Has remained in the classroom andmade use of his time out space ( frequently) and calming box’ (schoolstaff ); ‘He interacts with his peers during play time and has made friends’(school staff ).

• Developing self-awareness: ‘Is beginning to develop the skills to work inpairs and small groups’ (multi-agency staff ).

• Improved relationships: ‘As parents we are both very, very proud of how he


has moved on and developed his skills . . . Feel I’ve got a proper son, amproud’ (parent).

The thematic analysis indicates clear examples of positive development for eachyoung person across the ‘essential outcomes’ of PCP (Michaels & Ferrara, 2006;O’Brien, 1987). Changes made within school systems, at both an environmentaland a relational level, have supported positive growth, emphasising the role thatothers play as ‘agents of change’ (Fielding, 2001). Furthermore, the majority ofpositive reflections are consistent across stakeholder groups and have related toincreased school attendance, improved emotional understanding, social interac-tion skills, and academic progress.

A minority of negative reflections referred to a lack of progress associated withyoung people’s home life and family difficulties, highlighting the need for sus-tainable multi-agency involvement and support.

Discussion and conclusionA synthesis of the data indicates that, in this small-scale study, using PCP isperceived as useful in facilitating a positive transition and re-integration to main-stream settings. This is related to stakeholder experiences of the process andperceptions of progress and outcomes over time. Reflections across stakeholdergroups have highlighted key areas that can support or obstruct PCP being carriedout in practice and these will now be discussed in more detail.

The ‘Champion’ roleThe skill level, capacity, and availability of Champions required to elicit the viewsof the young people, and to provide support over time, need to be carefullymanaged. This has impacted upon young people’s engagement, their participa-tion, and the extent to which appropriate scaffolding and support has beenprovided.

Skills of the FacilitatorThe skills required to empower, reframe, and co-construct different perspectives,tailor participation, and encourage equal voice, within a holistic exploration ofneed, are clearly recognised. This has been related to the quality of action planningwithin this study (and within existing literature: Sanderson, 2000; Sanderson,Thompson & Kilbane, 2006).

Strength of stakeholder relationships and collaborative workingThe need to facilitate positive relationships, to support collaborative working, andpromote trust and engagement between stakeholders, is clear. Facilitators


reflected on the benefits of having school senior management present at PCPmeetings to support relationship building and a commitment towards ‘actionplanning’. Where barriers were evident, this centred on a lack of focus on youngpeople’s needs within their home environment (to support collaboration betweenfamily, school, and multi-agency professionals). In addition, people failing toattend meetings resulted in group disappointment and a lack of informationsharing.

Time and capacityThe need for time and capacity to attend meetings, particularly when youngpeople were planning for transition from primary to secondary school, is alsorecognised. After the initial PCP meeting, some negative accounts emphasised alack of feasibility and sustainability due to the ‘time-consuming’ nature of theprocess. However, when reviewing young people’s progress over time, wide-spread reflections referred to PCP being ‘well worth the investment of time’.

School systems and ethosPCP was deemed to ‘fit’ better within certain schools (those with an inclusiveculture). Educational psychologists who adopted the role of Facilitator referred tothe impact of schools’ existing systems and ethos as either supporting or being intension with PCP approaches.

Channels of communication and local authority systemsCommunication between schools and alternative provision settings affected howwell receiving schools made necessary arrangements and adaptations, involvingtimetabling and staffing issues, to support PCP. When local authority panelsimposed timescales for transition that did not match the wishes of the youngperson and setting, this created a tension when ‘preparing to plan’ for transition(from alternative provision provider to mainstream setting).

Implications for practice: a broader use of PCP within educationHaving highlighted areas that have provided both supports and barriers to PCPbeing carried out in practice, the potential gains and pitfalls of a wider applicationof PCP approaches within education will now be considered. This will informareas for potential ‘action’ that has relevance for future practice and research.

Potential gainsAs reflected in this study, PCP has facilitated progress in targeted support andintervention, young people’s engagement in education, and their individualprogress over time. All stakeholders present at review meetings referred to


improvements in support and understanding and the positive impact upon youngpeople’s motivation and achievement across social, emotional, and academicdomains. The review meetings provided an opportunity to strengthen stakeholderrelationships and to review the young person’s level of need and support. Thisinvolved updating the young person’s plan (one-page profile) and tailoringongoing intervention as appropriate.

In this study, all of the young people contributed their views over a prolongedperiod and as such were valued as ‘experts in their own lives’ (Sanderson, 2000).When reviewing outcomes over time, the young people sometimes reflecteddifferent views to their parents and school staff (relating to progress in the areasof ‘respect’ and ‘competence’), emphasising the importance of eliciting youngpeople’s own individual voice and not assuming that parents, carers or profes-sionals can always provide an accurate perspective.

It should also be noted that throughout this small-scale study, PCP has beenimplemented without any additional resourcing or funding, instead working withthe people, resources, and systems already in place.

Research conducted within adult learning disabilities in England over a two-yearperiod (Robertson et al., 2005) found PCP to be largely ‘cost-neutral’; however,research exploring the use of PCP within UK adult social care reported thatfunding and resourcing could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of PCP(Dowling, Manthorpe & Cowley, 2006). This highlights the importance of sup-portive infrastructure and resource allocations at a systems and organisationallevel; areas that will be of particular focus in the next special educational needsand disability pathfinder evaluation (exploring the longer term impact of EHCplans) due in 2015 (DfE, 2013c).

Potential pitfallsPerson centred planning involves a shift in power and control, so that youngpeople are valued as equal stakeholders, and a shared commitment towards highlyindividualised support. This presents a challenge to more traditional models ofservice delivery, as PCP advocates a ‘responsive’ rather than a ‘prescriptive’approach (Sanderson et al., 2006).

The need to invest sufficient time, training, and capacity to facilitate the authenticparticipation of children and young people is reflected in the special educationalneeds and disability pathfinder evaluation of EHC plans (DfE, 2013b), where ‘less


progress in terms of the involvement of children and young people’ has beenacknowledged.

The subsequent ‘impact evaluation’ (DfE, 2013c) referred to this when stating that‘parents were not quite so positive when it came to how their children’s views hadbeen taken into account, suggesting an area where further workforce developmentmay be required.’

In this study, all young people provided their views and participated throughoutthe PCP process. However, there were some examples of barriers related tocollaborative working, and of professionals failing to attend meetings. Thefollow-up PCP review aimed to avoid an ‘implementation gap’ (Mansell &Beadle-Brown, 2004), with PCP being seen as a ‘one-off meeting’; however, areduced number of attendees at reviews was evident. This may be attributable inpart to resource allocation, and to some services supporting children agedbetween five and 11 years, thus impacting upon the extent that young people’sneeds continue to be supported across school, family, and community contexts.

Areas for ‘action’A commitment to a person centred philosophySupporting a person centred culture entails organisational systems embracing the‘philosophy’ and ‘tools’ of person centred approaches (Taylor-Brown, 2012).Concerns regarding the implementation of PCP have referred to services dilutingPCP to fit within existing structures, and neglecting the skills and resourcing thattranslate the philosophical content into ‘action’ (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2004).The importance of improving systems to facilitate PCP in its context of use hasbeen highlighted. This demands that internal processes and organisationalsystems, within education, avoid standardised ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches infavour of authentic person centred working. This requires collaboration acrosseducation and with wider health and care partners to facilitate a robust andsupportive infrastructure with clear pathways for collaborative working.

Supporting schools: training, coaching and consultationExisting research, exploring PCP within adult learning disabilities, refers toFacilitators’ skills and commitment as the most powerful predictor of positiveoutcomes (Robertson et al., 2005; Sanderson et al., 2006). Exploration of factorsthat can impede or support PCP has indicated that ‘providing people with trainingto be facilitators is a beginning, but it is not enough’ (Sanderson et al., 2006).Provision of coaching, supervision, time, and support for Facilitators to safeguardthe quality and fidelity of PCP has been highlighted. Existing research


acknowledges that although PCP can be broadly accepted at a policy level, it canprove easier ‘to talk about it than to do it’ (Dowling et al., 2006).

In this study, educational psychologists adopted the role of Facilitator and as aprofession are deemed well placed to fulfil this role, as well as building capacityto support others at an organisational level through staff training, coaching,co-working, and consultation (Wagner, 2000). Educational psychologists havebeen referred to as skilled ‘at facilitating practice around wicked problems’(Hughes, 2006) and in using their knowledge and understanding of psychologicalframeworks and research to support a broader understanding of need. Supportingother practitioners to embed person centred practices and to be skilled as bothFacilitators and Champions is consistent with ‘giving psychology away’ (Miller,1969).

Future researchFuture research could explore with more young people and stakeholder groupsacross different contexts, using additional impact measures to corroborate par-ticipant reports (for example, achievement, attendance, and behavioural data), andexploring the organisational systems that support or impede PCP. This couldinclude a broader exploration of special educational needs annual reviews andEHC plans, along with other areas of educational planning, such as personaleducation plans for looked-after children. Future research and practice would alsobe advanced by working with wider professional roles and young people acrossthe age range to focus on the techniques and approaches that are most effective ineliciting young people’s views.

ReferencesAston, H. J. & Lambert, N. (2010) ‘Young people’s views about their

involvement in decision-making’, Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 41–51.

Audit Commission (2002) Statutory Assessment and Statements of SEN: inneed of review? Policy Focus. Wetherby: Audit Commission Publications.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge, andaction research. London: Routledge.

DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (2008) Aiming Highfor Disabled Children: transforming services for disabled children and theirfamilies. Nottingham: DCSF.


DfE (Department for Education) (2013a) Draft SEN Code of Practice: for 0–25years – statutory guidance for organisations who work with and supportchildren and young people with SEN. London: DfE.

DfE (Department for Education) (2013b) Evaluation of the SENDPathfinder Programme. Process and implementation. Research report.London: DfE.

DfE (Department for Education) (2013c) Impact Evaluation of the SENDPathfinder Programme. Impact research brief. London: DfE.

DoH (Department of Health) (2001) Valuing People: a new strategy forlearning disability for the 21st century. London: DoH.

DoH (Department of Health) (2007) Putting People First: a shared visionand commitment to the transformation of adult social care.London: DoH.

DoH (Department of Health) (2010) Person Centred Planning: advice for usingperson centred thinking, planning and reviews in school and transition.London: DoH.

Dowling, S., Manthorpe, J. & Cowley, S. (2006) Person-Centred Planning inSocial Care. A scoping review. An exploration of the relevance ofperson-centred planning in social care. London: Joseph RowntreeFoundation.

Dunsmuir, S., Brown, E., Iyadurai, S. & Monsen, J. (2009) ‘Evidence-basedpractice and evaluation: from insight to impact’, Educational Psychology inPractice, 25 (1), 53–70.

Fielding, M. (2001) ‘Students as radical agents of change’, Journal ofEducational Change, 2 (2), 123–141.

Forest, M., Pearpoint, J. & O’Brien, J. (1996) ‘MAPS: educators, parents,young people and their friends planning together’, Educational Psychologyin Practice, 11 (4), 35–40.

Fulcher, G. (1995) ‘Excommunicating the severely disabled: struggles, policyand researching’, in P. Clough and L. Barton (eds), Making Difficulties:research and the construction of special educational needs. London: PaulChapman.

Hayes, J. (2004) ‘Visual annual reviews: how to include pupils with learningdifficulties in their educational reviews’, Support for Learning, 19 (4),175–180.

Holburn, S. (2002) ‘How science can evaluate and enhance person-centeredplanning’, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(4), 250–260.

Hughes, M. (2006) ‘Multi-agency teams: why should working together makeeverything better?’, Educational and Child Psychology, 23 (4), 60–71.


Keyes, M. W. & Owens-Johnson, L. (2003) ‘Developing person-centred IEPs’,Intervention in School and Clinic, 38 (3), 145–152.

King, G. A., McDougall, J., Palisano, R. J., Gritzan, J. & Tucker, M. A. (2000)‘Goal attainment scaling’, Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,19 (2), 31–52.

Mansell, J. & Beadle-Brown, J. (2004) ‘Person-centred planning orperson-centred action? Policy and practice in intellectual disability services’,Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17 (1), 1–9.

Michaels, C. A. & Ferrara, D. L. (2006) ‘Promoting post-school success for all:the role of collaboration in person-centered transition planning’, Journal ofEducational and Psychological Consultation, 16 (4), 287–313.

Miller, G. A. (1969) ‘Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare’,American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1075.

Murray, P. & Sanderson, H. (2007) Developing Person-Centred Approaches inSchools. Stockport: HSA Press.

Norwich, B. & Kelly, N. (2004) ‘Pupils’ views on inclusion: moderate learningdifficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools’, BritishEducational Research Journal, 30 (1), 43–65.

O’Brien, J. (1987) ‘A guide to life-style planning: using the ActivitiesCatalogue to integrate services and natural supports systems’, in T. Bellamyand B. Wilcox (eds), A Comprehensive Guide to the Activities Catalogue: analternative curriculum for youth and adults with severe disabilities.Baltimore: Brookes.

Ofsted (2010) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Review: aStatement is not enough. London: Ofsted.

Pearpoint, J., O’Brien, J. & Forest, M. (1993) PATH, a Workbook for PlanningPositive Possible Futures: planning alternative tomorrows with hope forschools, organisations, businesses, families. Toronto, Canada: InclusionPress.

Ravet, J. (2007) ‘Enabling pupil participation in a study of perceptions ofdisengagement: methodological matters’, British Journal of SpecialEducation, 34 (4), 234–242.

Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Hatton, C., Elliott, J., McIntosh, B., Swift, P.,Krijnen-Kemp, E., Towers, C., Romeo, R., Knapp, M., Sanderson, H.,Routledge, M., Oakes, P. & Joyce, T. (2005) The Impact of Person CentredPlanning. Lancaster: Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University.

Rogers, C. (1951) Client-Centered Therapy: its current practice, implicationsand theory. London: Constable.

Sanderson, H. (2000) Person-Centred Planning: key features and approaches.York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.


Sanderson, H., Thompson, J. & Kilbane, J. (2006) ‘The emergence ofperson-centred planning as evidence-based practice’, Journal of IntegratedCare, 14 (2).

Smull, M., Sanderson, H., Sweeney, C., Skelhorn, L., George, A. & Bourne,M. (2005) Essential Lifestyle Planning for Everyone. Stockport: TheLearning Community.

Taylor-Brown, M. (2012) ‘How did young people identified as presenting withsocial, emotional and behavioural difficulties experience a person-centredtransition review meeting?’, Educational and Child Psychology, 29 (3),54–66.

Wagner, P. (2000) ‘Consultation: developing a comprehensive approach toservice delivery’, Educational Psychology in Practice, 16 (1), 9–18.

Address for correspondence:Dr Emma CorriganPlymouth Excellence Cluster & Community Psychology ServicePounds House162 Outland RoadPlymouth PL2 3PXUKEmail: [email protected]

Article submitted: November 2013Accepted for publication: May 2014


mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Person centred planning ‘in action’: exploring the use of person centred planning in supporting young people's transition and re-integration to mainstream education