With questions still unanswered about how special schools will contribute to the government's Experts at Hand programme, and more broadly about the role they could and should play within a reformed SEND system, this latest guest blog offers a practical illustration of the expertise that special schools can share beyond their own settings.
Drawing on approaches commonly used in special schools, Louise Baldwin, Senior Consultant at Therapeutic Thinking Ltd, writes about how mainstream colleagues can be supported to view behaviour through a sensory lens, helping move beyond what we see on the surface to better understand the needs behind a child's behaviour. Using the Person, Environment and Occupation (PEO) model, she shows how specialist knowledge can make a real difference to inclusion, participation and wellbeing.
Special schools have long understood that behaviour cannot be explained by observing a child’s actions alone. Special school staff are encouraged to notice subtle changes in posture, movement, vocalisation, facial expression and participation as an early sign of dysregulation. Attuned staff, who know the child well, may have a range of strategies to interrupt the dysregulation. However, to make progress we need detailed consideration of all the experiences and feelings contributing to the behaviour. One relevant factor may be how the child is processing their sensory experiences.
It is only through having an established method of ‘Assess, Plan, Do, Review’ that we can test our hypothesis.
The Person, Environment and Occupation (PEO) model offers a way to make our thinking visible. Considering this model can not only help to further improve our analysis of behaviour in special schools but also provides a structure when supporting mainstream colleagues.
Making expert thinking visible
A pupil covers their ears, leaves the room, rocks or pushes an adult away. Without a wider understanding of sensory processing, this can be interpreted as refusal, attention-seeking or deliberate challenge. Staff need to consider whether the behaviour might be a subconscious reaction to over- or under-stimulation.
Much like trauma-informed practice, sensory-informed practice is not a set of diagnostic tools; it is a route to understanding and empathy. It is common in special schools to consider the impact of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch on a child showing signs of dysregulation. In mainstream schools, staff may need support to understand how significant these can be, particularly for children who may struggle to advocate for their own needs. Developing research also places more emphasis on three further sensory systems: proprioception, vestibular processing and interoception. Special schools are increasingly aware of these systems and are well equipped to support mainstream colleagues who may not be as conscious of these.
Sensory processing is not a stand-alone diagnosis, and a sensory understanding does not explain every behaviour, but understanding the eight sensory systems will help us plan support and intervention that can be transformative for a child’s wellbeing.
We acknowledge academic debate about sensory processing and sensory integration but having seen how considering these factors through a PEO model has led to significant progress for young people, Therapeutic Thinking Ltd is convinced of the value of this approach. The PEO model is a simple, jargon-free way to consider why a pupil may be showing signs of dysregulation.
‘We should treat a sensory explanation as a hypothesis to test, not a proven cause or a ready-made solution.’
What PEO asks us to consider
Rather than locating the difficulty in the child, PEO considers the impact of environment and occupation (task).
Person: Attempting to change the child’s sensory processing, communication, health, emotional state and regulation is, at best, a long process. However, changes to environment and occupation can have an almost instant impact on levels of regulation and participation.
Environment: Small modifications to the noise, light, space, proximity, people and predictability can have an immediate impact on regulation. Observing progress can confirm or challenge the hypothesis.
Occupation: Adapting the task, including its sensory, emotional and communication demands and its length and pace, will support participation.
From observation to plan
Therapeutic Thinking has developed an individual pupil PEO planning document which describes what is happening and encourages reflection through the Person, Environment and Occupation model.
Adaptations need to begin with changes to environment and occupation that can be easily implemented before we consider the more complex ‘Person’ elements of support.
What special school staff can offer
Special school staff bring significant expertise to our mainstream colleagues. The PEO model provides a structure to consider what to look for, how to develop a hypothesis, how to create a plan and how to prioritise changes to the environment and occupation.
Effective analysis prevents the expectation that one person will have all the answers.
An example in practice
Leo is a Year 5 pupil in a mainstream primary school. During a recent consultation visit, it was observed that he struggles in afternoon lessons. He slumps against peers, tips his chair back, bumps into furniture, presses so hard while writing that the paper tears, and often leaves his seat, dropping to the floor. Sometimes he becomes tearful with no obvious trigger.
The PEO analysis helped us identify the mismatch between Leo, his environment and tasks. He was seeking firm pressure and heavy work to feel where his body was in relation to his environment (proprioception). He was tipping and rocking suggesting he needed movement to stay alert (vestibular). He appeared not to notice his hunger, thirst or a full bladder until he was overwhelmed, this suggested he was unable to recognise and communicate his internal states (interoception).
The PEO planning document completed for Leo changed the conditions of the environment and the occupation. Adaptations included a chair placed so that he could lean against a wall with a kick band attached, a ‘heavy work’ job scheduled before writing tasks, movement breaks between short, chunked tasks and a scheduled drink, snack and toilet check using a simple body-signals scale. On review, his self- regulation had significantly improved.
Without analysis of PEO, Leo’s behaviour would have continued to be recorded as inattentive and disruptive, and sanctions would have been applied. A sanction cannot meet a need for movement or heavy work, and repeated instructions to sit still do not help a pupil notice hunger or thirst. Where possible, regulation should be built into the task rather than added afterwards.
On a busy day with competing demands, we must hold on to the understanding that regulation must come before expectation.
Therapeutic Thinking Ltd offers additional CPD, considering Principles of Sensory Processing and supporting analysis tools that build upon the foundation of relational practice training. For further information, please contact us on enquiries@therapeuticthinking.co.uk