This paper examines how schools can become attuned to pupils with attachment difficulties and evaluates the impact and effectiveness of developing relationships between such at-risk individuals and significant adults.  There is a developing body of literature on the role of teacher-pupil interactions, predominantly from the USA (Early et al.,2017;Pianta & Fiske, 2015; Sabol & Pianta, 2012).  In addition, within Europe, there is an emerging evidence base of research relating to supporting pupils with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) (e.g. De Laet et al., 2014; Vervoort et al., 2014).

Research suggests that 40% of the population may have insecure attachments and their diverse needs challenge schools (Bombèr, 2011; Bombèr & Hughes, 2013; Geddes, 2006; Phillips, 2007).  Furthermore, children with RAD, or disorganized (D) type attachments, may exhibit significant behavioural difficulties (Vanijzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kraneburg, 1999; Vervoort et al., 2014) and are at-risk of psychopathology in later life (van Wouwe et al., 2017).  Such pupils pose particular challenges in relation to their inclusion within mainstream settings and are at-risk of social exclusion (Minnis, 2012); however, researchers worldwide (Granqvist et al., 2017) suggest that attachment based interventions and interpersonal relationships can alter attachment representations.  Moreover, a plethora of anecdotal evidence exists on the use of an ‘additional attachment figure” (Bombèr, 2007, p. 14) in schools (one who is not the teacher) and the idea of the “surrogate secure base” (Geddes, 2006, p. 141); nonetheless, there is limited empirical research. 

Through mixed methods, this multiple case study applied attachment theory to the educational context and evaluated the relationship between two individuals with attachment difficulties (Child A and B) and their teaching assistants.  Both pupils were in Key Stage 2 (age 9-11) and attended two rural, local authority, mainstream primary schools.  Their significant adults were trained by an Inclusion Support Officer from the local authority (who was also the researcher, which gave the study an ethnographic perspective); the material shared at this training was developed from a structured literature review.  Class teachers were not included in the sample, given their lack of availability and responsiveness and due to the fact that “complex and unhelpful dynamics arise” (Bombèr, 2007, p. 65) when they assume the significant adult role. This allowed the dyads to replicate (as closely as possible) the relationship between a child and their primary caregiver. 

As the notion of a significant adult is underpinned by attachment theory (Bowlby, 2005a, 2005b; Salter Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991), sampling adopted an a priori purposive strategy to ensure relevant data collection.  Both a context and participant level of sampling was employed, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria.  Two unique sampling tools were developed; the ‘Maximum Variation Quadrant’, based on Patton’s work (2002), and ‘The Attuned School Jigsaw and Checklist’ (Wall, 2014).  The first was applied to contexts to create a sample with differing characteristics; these being flexibility within strategic resourcing and outside agency input.  The second, created via a structured literature review, determined which schools were knowledgeable about attachment theory.  This condition was vital: training was not extensive, as its impact was unevaluated.  The review included material pertaining to: “relational” techniques muted within education (Bombèr & Hughes, 2013, p. 342); Nurture Groups (e.g. Scott & Lee, 2009); social care (e.g. Winter, 2009); parenting (e.g. McDaniel, Braiden, & Regan, 2009) and therapeutic work (e.g. Hughes, 2009; Lieberman & Zeanah, 1999).  In synthesising these ideas, collecting data (through policies, Individual Education Plans, interviews and observations) and analysing it both deductively and inductively, it was also possible for the study to determine how attuned schools were and gain an in-depth picture of local provision for pupils with attachment difficulties. 

The research followed the British Educational Research Association’s Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (BERA, 2011) and approval was sought from the University of Birmingham’s Ethics Committee. Particular attention was given to the pupils, as specific considerations apply to children (Morrow & Richards, 1996) and those with attachment difficulties may be especially vulnerable. The mixed-methods, multiple case study was conducted over a year-long period within two schools (one pupil-significant adult dyad was examined in each); ethnographic participant observation and illuminative evaluation (Parlett and Hamilton, 1972) were used, which included both quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary quantitative method was the use of validated Boxall Profiles (Bennathan & Boxall, 2010). This an assessment tool to identify an individual’s social, emotional and behavioural difficulties designed for use in Nurture Groups; however, it can also be employed successfully elsewhere (Baggerly & Jenkins, 2009; Broadhead, Chilton, & Stephens, 2011). A Boxall Profile was completed for each pupil at the research’s outset (only those with scores above 42 - one-third higher than the norm from three years four months to eight years - in Section II, The Diagnostic Profile (Clusters 1, 2 and 3 – Q through to Z were included in the study) and another after a year’s intervention with the significant adult: the former identified the children’s initial “pattern of functioning” (Bennathan & Boxall, 2010, p. 5) over the two sections (Section I - The Developmental Strand and Section II - The Diagnostic Profile) and the latter their subsequent development. Qualitative methods included observations, parent(carer)/child/significant adult interviews, minutes of Individual Education Plan meetings and reflective diaries. The data collected provided an in-depth picture of both pupil progress and the thoughts, feelings and opinions of stakeholders. Both a quantitative and qualitative approach was adopted for data analysis. After placing schools within the “Maximum Variation Quadrant”, according to their characteristics, quantitative content analysis was applied (using themes established via the structured literature review); this identified how attuned each school was. Quantitative data analysis also compared Boxall Profile scores (pre and post intervention) to determine each pupil’s behaviour change. Thematic ‘Framework’ (NatCen, 2015) analysis was applied to the qualitative data, which provided an in-depth picture of stakeholders’ views. This paper focuses on the findings from the later analysis, in relation to the pupil-significant adult dyad.

Attachment, and secure base, theories (Bowlby, 2005a, 2005b; Salter Ainsworth & Marvin, 1994) underpin this research; such concepts giving rise to the notion that schools, and significant adults, can become a “surrogate secure base” (Geddes, 2006, p. 141) from which pupils can develop social, emotional and behavioural skills. This study’s findings suggest that those schools with a family ethos, and reflective head teachers, are most likely to be attuned. It can also be concluded that the 1:1 intervention from the significant adults positively influenced the two case study pupils’ progress; their Boxall Profiles and Individual Education Plans providing evidence, as did participants’ voices. Furthermore, the Boxall Profile conveyed useful information regarding pupil progress, specifically in relation to how both Child A and B developed their social, emotional and behavioural skills in Section I (The Developmental Strands) and Section II (The Diagnostic Profile). Noteworthy improvement was made in Section II (The Diagnostic Profile), which opposes prior studies conducted in Nurture Group settings, which claim that these behaviours are more impervious to change (O'Connor & Colwell, 2002; Sanders, 2007); consequently, these results could indicate that the use of a significant adult has more impact and their availability and responsiveness paramount. This research demonstrates the importance of gathering data from a range of key stakeholders. Significant adults, members of staff, parents, carers and the pupils themselves had a voice, through meetings, interviews, diaries and observations. What emerges is that reflective, significant adults enable pupils with attachment difficulties to receive equal opportunities and not be discriminated against; this supports their inclusion within their school community and safeguards against exclusion.

Bombèr, L. M. (2007). Inside I'm hurting: practical strategies for supporting children with attachment difficulties in schools. London: Worth Publishing. Bombèr, L. M., & Hughes, D. (2013). Settling to Learn - Settling Troubled Pupils to Learn: Why Relationships Matter in School. Duffield, Derbyshire: Worth Publishing Ltd. Bowlby, J. (2005a). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Abingdon: Routledge Classics. Bowlby, J. (2005b). A Secure-Base. Abingdon: Routledge Classics. De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Goossens, L., Van Leeuwen, K., & Verschueren, K. (2014). Comparing Parent-Child and Teacher-Child Relationships in Early Adolescence: Measurement Invariance of Perceived Attachment-Related Dimensions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(6), 521-532. Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Ponder, B. D., & Pan, Y. (2017). Improving teacher-child interactions: A randomized controlled trial of Making the Most of Classroom Interactions and My Teaching Partner professional development models. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 38, 57-70. Geddes, H. (2006). Attachment in the Classroom: the links between children's early experience, emotional well-being and performance in school. London: Worth Pub. Granqvist, P., Sroufe, L. A., Dozier, M., Hesse, E., Steele, M., van Ijzendoorn, M., Duschinsky, R. (2017). Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers. Attach Hum Dev, 19(6), 534-558. Minnis, H. (2012). Reactive Attachment Disorder: The Missing Link in the Causation of Social Exclusion? International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 5(4), 42-46. Phillips, R. (2007). The Need for information on how the attachment difficulties of adopted and looked after children affect their schooling. Adoption and Fostering, 31(3), 28-38. Pianta, R. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Teacher–Student Interactions. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 98-105. Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attach Hum Dev, 14(3), 213-231. van Wouwe, J. P., Wright, B., Hackney, L., Hughes, E., Barry, M., Glaser, D., . . . McMillan, D. (2017). Decreasing rates of disorganised attachment in infants and young children, who are at risk of developing, or who already have disorganised attachment. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early parenting interventions. Plos One, 12(7), e0180858. Vanijzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kraneburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: meta-analysis of precursors., concomitants, and sequelae. Developmental Psychology 11(2), 225-249. Vervoort, E., Bosmans, G., Doumen, S., Minnis, H., & Verschueren, K. (2014). Perceptions of self, significant others, and teacher-child relationships in indiscriminately friendly children. Res Dev Disabil, 35(11), 2802-2811.