Secondary Schools and Pupil Loss by ParentalBereavement and Parental Relationship Separations

JOHN HOLLAND Kingston upon Hull City Council

The paper presents the findings of aninvestigation into how secondary schoolsaddressed two areas of loss: the relationshipendings and separation of pupils' parents,and the death of pupils' parent.

The study was undertaken throughin-depth interviews of key personnel insecondary schools. The results showed howschools tended to respond to these losses,where they sought support from and howthey perceived the two types of losses to bedifferent. In addition it showed how andwhere schools addressed loss in thecurriculum; the advantages of having lossaddressed in a policy; and the need to`support the supporters'.

Introduction

The research described in this paper involvedstructured interviews of senior teachers in nineteensecondary schools located in the north east ofEngland. The study was concerned with two of thelosses potentially suffered by children at school, thoseof the death of a parent and parental relationshipbreakdowns leading to the separation of the parents.

Loss is not addressed in the National Curriculum,described by Cox (1987) as an unfortunate omission.Leaman (1995) suggested that having death and lossas optional `add-ons', also sends a message to youngpeople about how the area is valued by schools andthe wider community. The Code of Practice issued bythe Department for Education (1994) acknowledgedthe emotional difficulties potentially caused by`psychological trauma', which could include lossesrelating to separation by both death and parentalrelationship endings.

Grief as a Process

Loss and change is ubiquitous in life, and is onlyproblematic when it overwhelms the individual.

Wells (1988) calculated that around 14,500 childrenare annually bereaved of a parent in England andWales. Golding (1991) contended that death as asubject is a cultural taboo, and not one for politedinner party conversation. Holland (1997) suggestedthat schools could play a part in modifying views andattitudes towards the topic.

Historically death was less of a taboo in the past, andmore part of life, being far more frequently encoun-tered. The Victorians, for example, were comfortablewith the subject, their taboo being sex! The generaldecline in religion may also be a factor, as thetendency for smaller and dispersed family units.Families may lack support at times of crisis, andchildren may lack opportunity, and knowledge as towhat is happening when a death occurs, presentingthe potential for fantasies and myths.

Relationship endings do seem to be a more character-istic problem of recent times, and although perhapsless taboo, affecting a large number of young people.Pechereck (1996) contended that the nuclear familytoday is no longer the norm. Webb (1996) calculatedthat there are around 900,000 step-families in theUnited Kingdom and around 200,000 children an-nually cease living with one of their natural parentsthrough a relationship ending.

The increase in relationship breakdowns seems torelate to a general liberalization of culture, and youngpeople likely have knowledge and experience of rela-tionship endings. The changes in family structure, withsmaller units and the potential for isolation may, alsoresult in less of a family support network for this loss.

The theoretical models of bereavement are equallyapplicable to loss in general and relationship ending.Kubler-Ross (1982) postulated a staged model of grief,from initial shock and disbelief, to anger, depression,then resolution and acceptance of the loss. Parkes(1986) suggested a more fluid model, the bereavedmoving backwards or forwards, rather than experi-encing the stages in sequence. Worden (1984) perceivedgrief as a series of tasks for the individual, playing anactive role in the process. These tasks includedaccepting the reality of the death, experiencing thepain of grief; and for the bereaved to reinvest theirenergy. The stresses and strains of separation and of

33PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

# NAPCE 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

death may follow similar patterns. Elmore (1986)found that the Kubler-Ross stage model equallyapplied to divorce, and Longfellow (1979) foundsimilar reactions in the children of divorcing parents.

Loss and Difficulties for Young People

There is evidence of young people experiencing dif-ficulty after loss. Raphael (1982) reported that 92 percent of children showed behaviour disturbances aftera bereavement. Shoor and Speed (1963), found someyoung adolescents exhibited delinquent and anti-social behaviour after a close death. Bowlby (1963)claimed that some bereaved children were morepredisposed to `clinging' behaviour. Birtchnell (1975)found that some female psychiatric patients scoredhighly on measures of dependency and exhibitedmore neurotic type behaviour as adults. Rutter (1966)reported bereaved children twice as likely to suffera psychiatric disturbance in adult life, and Hill (1969)found a correlation between adult depression, andchildhood bereavement. Black (1974) reported evi-dence of negative consequences of childhood bereave-ment, such as depression, and school refusal.Hetherington et al. (1986) found evidence of severereactions in children under five years old, whoseparents were separating. Alsop (1993) reported that37 per cent of children were still moderately toseverely depressed five years after a parental relation-ship separation. Cox (1987) found that two thirds ofchildren showed a marked change in behaviour atschool after a marital breakdown. Amato and Keith(1979) found that children could have both learningand psychological problems after a marital separa-tion.

How Schools can Help

Schools could offer reactive support to young peoplehaving experienced loss, but could also be pro-activethrough `loss education'. Holland (1993) foundprimary schools rated the area of bereavement as ofhigh importance, as did secondary schools (Hollandand Ludford, 1995). Schools with more or recentexperience of bereavement rated the area higher, andreported that their training need was greater thanother schools. Many teachers lacked understanding ofthe grieving process. Lackey (1991) found that 80 percent of teachers thought they could help childrendevelop an understanding of death, although only30 per cent actually addressed it in the curriculum.Abrams (1993) thought teachers were reluctant to`bridge' the professional relationship with the child, toone of a personal and sensitive nature by discussingdeath. Lewis (1992) suggested that teenagers foundschool a safe haven after marital endings, andbereavement by death. The former group perceivedthat they received more teacher support than did thelatter. Raphael (1984) hypothesized that bereaved

children `mark time' in grieving until facilitated byan adult, helping them to express their thoughts andfeelings, and this could equally apply to parentalseparation.

Methodology

The research was by structured interview with asample of nineteen schools in the north-east. Thequestions, shown in the appendix, were sent to theteachers before the interview, giving time for con-sideration, reflection, and gathering of informationfrom colleagues.

Results

Twenty-one per cent of teachers reported loss affect-ing both behaviour and learning of pupils. The other79 per cent agreed that it may affect both, dependingon the context. Sixty-three per cent of teachersreported that they included loss education in thecurriculum. Table 1 below shows where the area isaddressed in the curriculum, most used either RE orPSE. Table 2 further below shows the year groupwhere it takes place, most was in the year groups Y9to Y11.

Thirty-two per cent of schools reported no differencein the way that relationship breakdowns and deathwere addressed in their curriculum. A similar number

Table 1. The subject areas where loss isaddressed in the curriculum

Subject area %

Religious Education 53PSE 26English 16Tutor Time 11GCSE Short Course 11Cultural Studies 5Topic 5

Table 2. The year groups where loss isaddressed in the curriculum

Year group %

Y7 5Y9 16Y10 5Y7-11 16Y9-11 21

34 # NAPCE 2000. PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

reported that they responded differently to the twolosses. Sixteen per cent of schools used Cruse, GoodGrief, and the Church to help with death education.Eleven per cent of schools used the televisionprogramme Life Skills, the NSPCC, EducationalPsychologist, Social Services, Educational SocialWorkers, Catholic care, Barnados, `Wise before theevent, the Times Educational Supplement' and REtextbooks.

The schools reported that they usually found outabout parental deaths directly, by phone or personalcontact. Twenty-one per cent of schools reported thatthey found out directly about relationship break-downs, seventy-nine per cent reporting finding outindirectly through the `grapevine'.

Twenty-six per cent of schools had a formal pro-cedure for responding to a pupil's loss, althoughseventy-four per cent had no procedure. In 32 per centof schools it was the tutor who was responsible forresponding to the loss, in 21 per cent it was the headof year, and in 5 per cent of schools the first contactretained the responsibility.

Table 3 below shows the communication systems inplace in schools relating to loss.

Thirty-seven per cent of schools reported thatcounselling support was available in school.

Table 4 below shows the outside agencies involved ingiving support for loss.

Seventy-four per cent of schools reported that theirresponse would be different in relation to a death, asopposed to a marital breakdown, and the reasons forthese differences are shown in Table 5 below.

Sixty-three per cent of schools reported that staff hadbeen informed of all the measures in place to dealwith student's loss. Ninety-five per cent of schoolsreported that the issues of loss were not addressed inany policy document at school, although 79 per centthought that they should be so mentioned.

Discussion

All the teachers in the study acknowledged that losseither always had a profound effect on the learningand behaviour of young people, or that the effectdepended on the individual and the context. Twenty

Table 3. The communication systems inschools relating to loss

System %

Staff briefing 63Notice Board 32Pastoral meeting 11Notes 11Verbal ± on need to know 11Circular 5

Table 4. Outside agencies used by schools

Agency %

Educational Psychologists 42Educational Welfare Officer 21Youth Counsellor 21Social Worker 16Cruse 16Barnados 1General Practitioner 5Educational Social Worker 5NSPCC 5Consultant counsellor 5

Table 5. Responses different to relationship breakdown compared to death, in rank order

Response %

Relationship breakdown is a cultural `norm' 37Death significant as a permanent loss 26Respond to a perceived need 26Parent/student may not want school involvement in a relationship breakdown 26Teachers more sympathetic to a death 21Children have peer support for relationship breakdowns 21Children more easily adapt to relationship breakdowns 16Both losses are traumatic events 11Staff may be affected 5Death is a whole school issue 5Staff more comfortable with relationship breakdowns 5

35# NAPCE 2000.PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

per cent of teachers thought that learning and be-haviour were always affected by such a loss. This wasan acknowledgement of the potentially profound effectthat loss can have on the lives of young people.Teacher observations included that the effects willdepend on the personality, and coping strategies of theyoung person, and that loss may well amplify, ratherthan cause difficulties. It was also acknowledged thatsome young people who seemed to be quietly copingwith loss in their life could actually be depressed.

The findings of the study as to the potential effect ofloss on young people confirmed earlier studies.Raphael (1982), Alsop (1993), Cox (1987) and Amatoand Keith (1979) all detected changes in the behaviourand learning of young people after loss. The differ-ential effect suggested by some teachers was in linewith Utting (1995), who found that within the samefamily, children had varying reactions to a separation.This suggests that there are `within person' factors, aswell as family context, and nature of the loss.

Sixty-three per cent of schools addressed loss in aplanned and structured way within the curriculum.The two most common areas were R.E. (53%) and PSE(26%). Eighty-three per cent of schools with losseducation used R.E. at least partially. Other areasused included planned tutor time, and English. In26 per cent of schools, loss education was serendipity,through subject areas such as the humanities, English,R.E. and PSE.

Schools generally had two approaches to the age atwhich loss was taught. Twenty-six per cent of schoolstaught loss to one age group, most commonly Y9. Thesecond method was by `trickle', where loss was intro-duced over time. In 37 per cent of schools loss wasintroduced in the early years, and followed up in thelater from Y7 to Y11. Without further research it is notpossible to evaluate the effectiveness of eitherapproach.

Schools were divided over whether there weredifferences between how relationship endings anddeath were dealt with in the curriculum. Thirty-twoper cent contended that there were no differencesbetween how the two areas were addressed. A similarnumber perceived the areas as essentially different.Those teachers seeing no differences between the twoareas, perhaps focused on the `endings' element of loss.

Schools seem to make little use of outside agencies inloss education. The Church was used by sixteen percent of schools, as was Cruse and the book `GoodGrief'. `Wise before the event' was a resource bookdistributed to all schools in England, but was onlymentioned once, perhaps having little impact on thearea of loss.

There were differences between how schools foundout about the two losses. In the case of a death, all the

schools reported that they were usually contacteddirectly either by phone or personal contact. Schoolsgenerally found out more indirectly about parentalrelationship endings and separations. Seventy-nineper cent of the schools reported that they found outthrough a change in the behaviour of the youngperson, from the student directly, or from theirfriends.

These differences reflect the contrasts between thetwo losses. Death is final, and is quickly followed bythe funeral service. Relationship endings may not befinal, there may be reconciliation, and they may alsobe perceived as an avoidable loss. There is no realformal rite of passage, other than divorce. This doesfit with the view of teachers being more sympathetictowards death as a loss than a relationship ending.These results conflict with Lewis (1992) who foundthat young people perceived they received moresupport in the case of a relationship ending. However,this study focused on teachers, and not on youngpeople. Schools seemed reluctant to become involvedwith young people and their families with relation-ship endings, as the parties may resolve theirdifferences, and teachers may be perceived assupporting one side, and being drawn into theconflict.

Twenty-six per cent of schools had a procedure forresponding to loss, the others responding on an ad hocbasis. The procedures in schools varied. One schoolwrote to the family after a death, had a briefingsystem, and addressed matters through the pastoralsystem. Another school always attended a funeral,with two more reporting that they would attend afuneral if they thought it appropriate. Dyregrov (1991)suggested that on balance schools should alwayscontact the home after a death.

Teachers did not consider it appropriate to announcerelationship endings at briefings, nor to place them ona notice board. Schools had no such problems with adeath. One reported that they would put a relation-ship ending on the notice board if there had been anadverse effect on the pupil. Eleven per cent of schoolsreported that they sent discreet notes to teachers, thisbeing on a `need to know' basis. The key figures in theprocedures tended to be the student's tutor (32%), ortheir head of year (21%). One school retained theperson first contacted regarding the death as the mostappropriate key person. Other schools dealt withmatters on an ad hoc basis. The main reason providedby schools as to why procedures were developed wasto respond to a perceived need. Eleven per cent ofschools related the development of a procedure to theschool as a caring `family'.

The most common form of communication withinschools was staff briefings, this in 63 per cent. Thenotice-board was the second common form used in32 per cent of schools. Schools acknowledged that

36 # NAPCE 2000. PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

there could well be gaps in communication leading topotential problems, for example on transfer fromprimary to secondary schools. With `open' records, itwas thought that there may be a reluctance to recordrelationship endings. Other problems included lossesthat took place in the holidays, especially in thesummer. Losses may go unnoticed or not commun-icated, such as staff being absent or missing briefings.There may even be a problem when a teacher isreplaced at the school. Eighty-nine per cent of schoolsacknowledged the need to `tighten up their system',to ensure that communication was not flawed. Thestudy had benefits in helping schools audit thesesystems.

Thirty-seven per cent of schools had counsellingavailable on campus. This was either by teacherstrained as counsellors, or professional counsellors onthe staff. The minimum qualifications were certific-ates in counselling, with some also having diplomas.Parental consent was usually always obtained wherean outside agency was involved. None of the teacherssought consent in an emergency, where for example ayoung person was in distress. Twenty-one per cent ofschools would counsel without seeking parentalconsent.

There was some confusion as to the definition ofcounselling, some regarded active listening andadvice as counselling, and these were not includedin the `yes' figures. One school had a professionalcounsellor on staff, three other schools had experi-enced bereavement counsellors on their staff. Twenty-one per cent of the schools seemed very well able torespond effectively. Peer counselling took place in11 per cent of schools and another was in the processof initiating such a system. Teachers thought that itwas appropriate to use these groups for relationshipendings situations, rather than after a death. Thesewere exciting initiatives in terms of potentiallyempowering young people. Counsellors normallyreceive supervision, and this was neglected in schools.Most teachers had some form of informal support,through talking to peers, but this was on an ad hocbasis not a regular basis.

In some schools, outside agencies were called quickly,although in others advice sought only for difficultcases. Educational psychologists were the profes-sionals most likely to be used for support, this in42 per cent of schools. Educational welfare officerswere involved in twenty-one per cent of schools, aswere Youth Counselling Services. Cruse and socialworkers were involved in 16 per cent of schools.Outside agencies were used far more in responding toa loss than they were in loss education.

Twenty-six per cent of schools reported that there wasno difference between the way in which theyresponded to the two losses. The teachers consideredthat they were responding to the perceived need of

the young person. The majority of 74 per cent ofschools saw the need for a different response. Themost common reason given for this strategy was thatrelationship breakdowns are now a cultural norm,whereas parental death was not. Teachers seemed tofocus on the type of loss, rather than on loss per se.

Pupils may find comfort in having peers with whomthey can talk about their experiences. Bereavedchildren may not have the same peer network ofsupport, but did seem to have a more sympatheticapproach from staff. Some schools felt that parents orchildren may not want their involvement in a loss, itbeing a personal and private matter. This reluctanceof teachers to become involved may relate to the lackof confidence in the area.

One school had an active policy in the area of loss. Ofthe remaining 95 per cent, 79 per cent saw the needfor a policy. Sixteen per cent of the schools saw noneed for the issue to be encapsulated in a policydocument. One teacher was sceptical that having apolicy necessarily meant that the issue was actuallydealt with effectively. This was a valid point, thougha policy does formally acknowledge the area and alsohopefully raises awareness.

Thirty-seven per cent of schools reported that theyensured that all teachers at the school knew ofprocedures. Twenty-six per cent of schools consideredthat they needed to `tighten up' this area.

There was wide variety in provision. Eleven per centof schools had a support system for loss in place, buthad no loss education in the curriculum. Thirty-twoper cent of schools had loss education integrated intothe curriculum, but had no support system. Twenty-six per cent of schools had both a system of losseducation and loss response in place. Twenty-one percent of schools had neither a loss education, nor a lossresponse system. The deputy head was the key figurein three of the five schools having both loss educationand support. It seemed important that a key figure inthe school management was interested, and willing topromote the area. Those able to promote changes maybe a prime target in terms of awareness raising.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The study provides a `snap-shot' of how a sample ofsecondary schools supported pupils going througheither a parental relationship separation or a parentalbereavement. They can help by responding to a losswhen it happens or preparing their young peoplethrough loss education.

Sixty-three per cent of schools had some form of losseducation into the curriculum, generally through R.E.,or PSE. Thirty-seven per cent had a trickle down formof loss education, with loss being taught over a series

37# NAPCE 2000.PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

of years. Twenty-six per cent of schools had formalprocedures in place to respond to pupils' losses. Onehad a formal policy, although most teachers thoughtthis was a positive move. Seventy-four per cent ofschools had briefings as a communication systemwithin schools, the next popular method was throughnotice boards. There was a recognition of the potentialgaps, in particular on transition from primary school,when the loss occurred in the holidays or with staffchanges.

There was a difference generally between how schoolsfound out about a death, usually directly by a parentor relation. With relationship endings, these werefound out through the `grapevine' or a noticeablechange in the behaviour of young people. There was ageneral reluctance of schools to become involved inthe area of relationship breakdowns.

The most likely outside agency to be consulted forsupport after a loss were educational psychologists,this by forty-two per cent of schools. Schools weremore likely to seek support from outside agencies,where there has been a loss, rather than for assistingwith death education. There were some innovativepractices being established, such as peer counsel-ling, although this had a focus on relationship losses.However, there was little formal support for teachersthemselves supporting young people going througha loss experience, and only one school had a formalpolicy in the area of losses.

Several schools either had peer counselling groupseither running or planned, and in the case ofrelationship endings these may be helpful for youngpeople.

One area of concern was the lack of formalizedsupport for those teachers supporting young people.Some form of supervision or formalized support isessential for teachers in this role.

Recommendations

1. That schools consider the roles they can play bothreactively and proactively in the area of loss andyoung people.

2. That loss is addressed in a formal policy documentwith appropriate procedures.

3. That all staff in schools are made aware of theprocedures in place.

4. That schools audit their lines of communication toensure that they are fully effective.

5. That the role of the supporters and counsellorsof young people are considered and appropriatesupervision be provided.

6. That innovative practice such as peer counsellingbe extended to include all losses.

7. That schools consider the wide range of potentialoutside support for loss education.

References

ABRAMS, R. (1993) `Helping Teenagers and Young Adults Copewith the Death of a Parent', Bereavement Care 12 (2) pp. 16±18.

ALSOP, P. and MCCAFFREY, T. (1993) How to Cope with ChildhoodStress. London: Longmans.

AMATO, P.R. and KEITH, B. (1979) `Parental Divorce and the WellBeing of Children, a Meta Analysis'. Psychological Bulletin 110,pp. 24±46.

BIRTCHNELL, T. (1975) `Psychiatric Breakdown Following RecentParent Death', British Journal of Medical Psychology 48, pp. 379±90.

BLACK, D. (1974) `What Happens to Bereaved Children?', Thera-peutic Education 2, pp. 15±20.

BOWLBY, J. (1963) `Pathological Mourning and Childhood Mourning',Journal of the American Psycho-analytical Association 11, pp. 500±10.

COX, K.M. and DESFORGES, P. (1987) Divorce and the School.London: Methuen.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1994) Code of Practice. London:HMSO.

DYREGROV, A. (1991) Grief in Children. London: Jessica Kingsley.ELMORE, L.J. (1986) `The Teacher and the Child of Divorce', Paper

presented at the Seventh Annual Families Alive Conference, Ogden,UT, September 10±12, 1986.

GOLDING, C. (1991) Bereavement. Ramsbury: The Crowood Press.HETHERINGTON, E.M., COX, M. and MOT. R. (1986) `Effects of

Divorce on Single Parents and Children' in M.E. Lamb (ed.) NonTraditional Families: Parenting and Child Development. Hilldale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

HILL, O.W. (1969) `The Association of Childhood Bereavement withSuicide Attempts in Depressive Illness', British Journal ofPsychiatry 115, 301±4.

HOLLAND, J.M. (1993) `Child Bereavement in HumbersidePrimary Schools', Educational Research 35 (3), pp. 289±97.

HOLLAND, J.M. and LUDFORD, C. (1995) `The Effects of Bereave-ment on Children in Humberside Secondary Schools', BritishJournal of Special Education 22 (2), pp. 56±9.

HOLLAND, J.M. (1997) An Investigation Into Student Loss in Second-ary Schools unpublished MSc dissertation, University of New-castle upon Tyne.

KUBLER-ROSS, E. (1982) On Death and Dying. Tavistock: London.LACKEY, J. (1991) `Attitudes and Responses to Death Education of

a Sample of Primary School Teachers in Belfast', Bereavement Care10 (2), pp. 22±3.

LEAMAN, O. (1995) Death and Loss; Compassionate Approaches in theClassroom. London: Cassell.

LEWIS, J. (1992) `Death and Divorce ± Helping Students Cope inSingle Parent Families', NASSP Bulletin 76 (543), pp. 55±60.

LONGFELLOW, C. (1979) `Divorce in Context: Its Impact onChildren' in G. Levinger and O.C. Moles (eds) Divorce andSeparation. New York: Basic Books.

LONSDALE, G., ELFER, P. and BALLARD, R. (????) Children, Griefand Social Work. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

PARKES, C.M. (1986) Studies of Grief in Adult Life. Madison: Inter-national Press.

PECHERACK, A. (1996) `Growing Up in Non-Nuclear Families'in A. Sigston, P. Corran, A. Labraum and S. Wolfrendale (eds)Psychology in Practice with Young People, Families and Schools.London: David Fulton.

RAPHAEL, B. (1982) `The Young Child and the Death of a Parent' inC.M. Parkes and L. Stevenson-Hinde (eds) The Place of Attachmentin Human Behaviour. London: Tavistock.

RAPHAEL, B. (1984) Anatomy of Bereavement: A Handbook for theCaring Professions. London: Hutchinson.

RUTTER, M. (1966) Children of Sick Parents. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

SHOOR, M. and SPEED, M. (1963) `Death, Delinquency and theMourning Process' in R. Fulton (ed.) Death and Identity. Bowie,Maryland: Charles Press.

UTTING, D. (1995) Family and Parenthood: Supporting Families,Preventing Breakdown. London, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

WEBB, S. (1994) Troubled and Vulnerable Children. A Practical Guidefor Heads. Kingston Upon Thames: Cromer Publications.

WELLS, R. (1988) Helping Children Cope with Grief. London: Sheldon.

38 # NAPCE 2000. PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000

WALLBANK, S. The Empty Bed. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.WORDEN, W. (1984) Grief Counselling and Grief Therapy. Tavistock:

London.

CorrespondenceJohn HollandEducational PsychologistKingston upon Hull City CouncilLearning Services3rd FloorEssex HouseManor StreetKingston upon HullHU1 1QD

John Holland completed this research prior to join-ing the City Psychological Service and the views hepresents are personal and not necessarily those ofthe Service. A loss awareness training programmefor teachers called `Lost for Words' had just beenlaunched in the City by the Psychological Service;for details contact the author, whose book Coping withBereavement, A Handbook for Teachers, can be obtainedfrom Cardiff Academic Press.

Appendix

Interview schedule

1. To what extent do you think that students'personal loss affects:a. behaviour b. learning in school

2. Does your school address the area of loss edu-cation (divorce separation or bereavement) in thecurriculum?

3. If so, please specify in which curriculum area, andyear group, this education takes place?

4. Are there any differences between the ways inwhich marital breakdown and bereavement areaddressed in the curriculum?

5. Do you use either outside agencies, or infor-mation packages in the delivery of these aspectsof the curriculum? If so, please give details.

6. Generally, how do you find out if a student hasexperienced personal loss through:a. marital breakdown b. bereavement?

7. Is there a procedure for responding to this loss?8. If there is a procedure, who is responsible?9. Is there a communication network to address

students' personal loss?a. internally b. externally?

10. Is counselling support available?11. Who provides this counselling? What are their

experience and qualifications? Do parents givetheir consent?

12. Would the school's response be different in rela-tion to a death, as opposed to a marital break-down? If so how?

13. How are the adults who support students affectedby loss, helped themselves?

14. Have the staff been informed of all the measuresin place to deal with students' loss?

15. Are the issues discussed mentioned in any policydocument?

16. If not, do you think that they should they shouldbe so mentioned?

17. Is there anything else you would like to say onthis subject?

39# NAPCE 2000.PASTORAL CARE ± DECEMBER 2000