An overview of the clinical services we offer to support families and professionals in Ireland by Mary Maher, a member of our Clinical and Training Team at Studio 3 Irealand. ‘Write an article Mary. Tell everyone about what we do here in Ireland,’ said our esteemed CEO Andy McDonnell. On the face of it, that should be really easy to do, however it is anything but. Where do I start? On any given day, I could be delivering a training course in the morning. By the afternoon, I could be supporting parents as they manage some distressed behaviours in the family home. When that is finished, I could be working on an assessment report to make a diagnosis, or assess the needs of someone seeking services, or working on a case for the court. Working for Studio 3 Ireland is demanding, exciting and challenging on any given day, and no two days are the same. Working for Studio 3 Ireland is also extremely rewarding, as we get to make a real difference in the lives of those we support. This article seeks to give an overview of some of the work we have undertaken in the past few years here in Ireland, and provide an insight into the support we offer to families and individuals. Riding Out the Storm: Covid-19 Pandemic The Covid 19 pandemic taught us that there were more ways to support people than ‘in-person on-site.’ The month before the pandemic, Andy arrived at our offices in Maynooth with a box under his arm. Out of the box he produced a funny little robotic thing. He explained that this wonderful new technology called ‘Zoom’ was going to revolutionise how we did our job. The funny little robotic thing had a camera and a microphone, and swivelled around to observe each of us as we spoke. He even linked it up with our colleagues in the UK to give us a practical demonstration of just how amazing it was. To be honest we were impressed, but didn’t think it would be of much use to us other than the odd catch up call with Head Office. Well, how we swallowed those words a mere month later. Andy was back for his monthly round of visits to Ireland: the pandemic (or the two weeks we thought we were going to have to stay home) was about to be declared. Andy left on the Wednesday fearing he’d be stranded in Ireland for a whole two weeks if a lockdown was declared, leaving the little robotic thing sitting on the office table. The rest is history. Over the following weeks and months, we reinvented ourselves. The people who needed us still needed us, and we were going to do whatever it took to remain committed to the people, organisations, and families who depended on us. In fact, more people than ever needed us, because lockdown meant that in addition to our normal clinical and training work, many of the people we support were now without a service, and families needed our help more than ever. The advantage of the little robotic thing was that it didn’t matter anymore where we were, or where the people who needed us were, or that we couldn’t meet face-to-face anymore - we could work across borders. The little robotic thing became our new best friend and our new way of doing just that. Post-Covid, Studio 3 Ireland continues to be heavily involved in the more traditional side of our clinical and assessment work, which includes doing all types of assessments including diagnostics, needs assessments and service specifications, and providing clinical oversight for services. There is a growing demand too for new initiatives, as the focus has shifted from not just the person with the diagnosis, but to the team around the person. This includes parents and family members, as well as staff teams and professionals involved. As we evolved and grew during Covid, we continue to evolve and grow to meet the clinical and training demands of services, families, and schools in Ireland. Exploring My Autism Course Historically, there has been a lot of negativity attached to receiving a diagnosis of autism. Sometimes the diagnosis can come at the end of a long period of wondering why an individual finds some things difficult. To others, it can come as a relief: at last, they have a name for it! It can, however, be distressing and difficult for the person who has received a diagnosis of autism as they try to figure out what exactly being autistic means for them. Studio 3 has developed a new ‘Exploring My Autism’ course for people who have just received their diagnosis, or people who have had difficulty coming to terms with what their diagnosis means in practical terms for them. In 2022 we rolled out our new ‘Exploring My Autism’ course. Developed in collaboration with service providers, this ten-week bespoke and interactive course (delivered over ten 1-hour sessions) focuses on working directly with young adults who have a diagnosis of ASD, to help them understand what being autistic means to them. Too often, these types of courses focus primarily on the deficits that come with a diagnosis. This course covers not just the challenges that being autistic can present, but focuses on the many positive qualities and traits that come with being autistic. Too often there is a focus on what people do wrong or can’t achieve. We try to counter-balance that perspective by addressing the many strong admirable features that we see in the people we work with. Each participant gets to chart their own autistic and sensory profiles, and in doing so, develop a better understanding of their strengths and challenges. Realising that they are very different from other people in their group is really empowering for them. We discuss stress and how to manage it more effectively. We do breathing exercises and the Emotional Freedom Technique to use as coping strategies in times of distress. We practice different forms of mindfulness, from body scans to walking meditation. We try polyvagal relaxation techniques. We explore ways of making the sensory demands of the world less challenging. We have an olfactory and taste workshop where we have great fun, exploring all sorts of smells, scents and tastes, discussing how it affects our nose or taste buds and even our mood. We look at the challenges that executive functioning can present, and explore hints and tips to help to be more organised. At the end of the ten-week course, each participant is awarded a certificate of completion. We have had great feedback from both participants and staff alike who have attended. We hope to offer this course to other organisations over the coming months. It is engaging, participatory, informative and, most of all, fun for the participants who attend. Low Arousal Family Training and Support Many families who live with and support a loved-one who has additional needs such as a diagnosis of autism spectrum difference (ASD), attentional deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), trauma, attachment disorder, acquired brain injury (ABI) or intellectual disability can have trouble understanding, managing, or changing their more complex challenges and behaviours. They have tried their utmost to help their child, teenage, or adult family member in the best way they know how, yet they still face daily challenges at home, at school or college, in a day service, and out in the community. This is why Studio 3 have developed a Family Support Programme which endeavours to meet the individual needs of each family, and coaches parents, carers and siblings to develop a skill set to support their family member, in a practical and non-confrontational way. Family Training in Low Arousal Approaches All Studio 3 Family Training courses are based on the principles of the Low Arousal Approach to managing distressed behaviours by lowering physiological arousal, thus preventing situations escalating to crisis levels in the first place, and by developing an understanding of why the behaviour occurs. Part of the solution for many people is focusing on and improving their living, school and working environments to make those environments less demanding and stressful. Many organisations and schools recognise that applying Low Arousal Approaches across all areas of a person’s life has great benefits, not just at organisational level, but for the person with additional needs and their family. Our family training takes place over a number of sessions, exploring the complexity of the individual person, and the needs of the family. We also offer online introductory and advanced Low Arousal training, bespoke and group family training sessions, as well as ongoing coaching and mentoring after training has been completed to support implementing theory into practice. This can be delivered online, face-to-face, or in a hybrid of both. Group training is provided on a bespoke basis, where the needs of the group are the focus. Participants are taught the Low Arousal Approach for managing difficult behaviours, challenges experienced by their loved-ones are explored and explained, and participants are encouraged to develop skills to meet the sometimes complex situations that they face in their families. For more information about the range of family training and support available, visit www.studio3.org/family-training. Bulling We recently held a focus group with a group of students and staff in an organisation that we have worked with for many years. We wanted to look at the subject of bullying, which we know can be the cause of much distress in the population that we support. We wanted to design an informative bullying course that addressed the real issues that our young people with autism and ADHD come across. The focus group gave us a dearth of information: one of the interesting things that we discovered is that 90% of the people who took part in the focus group had been bullied at some time in their lives. Some people wondered if they deserved to be bullied, which was quite shocking. Others struggled to address it because they were afraid that they would make the bullying worse. Many spoke about their loss of confidence and feelings of powerlessness. We wanted to explore all these issues in a safe space, where everyone’s voice had a chance to be heard. We are currently rolling out the first course and I am pleased to report that it is going extremely well. If anyone would like further information, please contact head office at admin@studio3.org or the Irish office at marym@studio3.org Studio 3 Think Tank at Folly Farm The Studio 3 Ireland clinical and training teams had the opportunity to meet up with our UK and Swedish colleagues at the annual Studio 3 Clinical and Training event in March of this year. It was really nice to be able to mix with our colleagues again after the isolation of the Covid years. Studio 3 took over an old Farmhouse in the hills outside Bristol. It was the perfect place, and the perfect opportunity to regroup and plan ahead after years of working in bedrooms, sitting rooms and, in my case, my ‘posh’ garden shed. We spent a very productive three days reviewing where we are now in Studio 3, and where we want to be in a few years’ time. We have lots of plans – so watch this space. We worked hard, but we also relaxed hard too. A bottle or two of Rhubarb and Ginger gin was consumed, as were several bottles of wine and assorted spirits. Andy and Denise, who are great fans of board and party games, brought a selection from home. I am still trying to figure out the rules of one particular game that remains a complete mystery. Andy and Denise’s Christmas parties are legendary for pitting Studio 3 teams against each other, in ‘dog-eat-dog’ competitions. While the farmhouse itself was lovely, the surrounding countryside was beautiful, and gave us lots of opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors. It was lovely to wake up in the morning to a field of sheep grazing, or lambs playing on the hills. There were lovely walks in the woods too which is just what we needed after a tough day plotting and planning. I am reliably informed that it has been booked again for next year, and I can't think of a better place to get us all together again! The Friends of Studio 3 WhatsApp Group Studio 3 Ireland have a WhatsApp group called ‘Friends of Studio 3’. We share links to research, information articles, links to free webinars, suggestions for books, and anything else of interest to people who share the same ethos as ourselves. If anyone out there would like to join, please text your name, organisation, and phone number to 087-2494001 and I will add you to the list. Written by Mary Maher, Studio 3 Clinical Services

Studio 3 trainer Keri Dickson is a lead practitioner from Northern Ireland who delivers Low Arousal Training at Introductory and Advanced levels online to families, professionals, and staff teams every Friday. In this article, Keri reflects on the Low Arousal Approach. Practicing positive psychology and supporting individuals in a Low Arousal way coincides with my personal ethos of proactive support rather than that of reactive planning, although both are essential to aid effective coping mechanisms, stress reduction, and to facilitate a person’s overall well-being. I am a Lead Trainer in Low Arousal Training, working with the Training and Clinical Services teams to provide support and deliver courses on Managing Signs of Stress to staff teams and families. With over 12 years' experience, my background is in adult and children's services in Northern Ireland. Before Studio 3, I was a Service Manager for an organisation supporting autistic adults, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and people with acquired brain injuries. My role throughout my career has been focused to guide services and teams towards person-centred support, with Low Arousal strategies rooted into care practices. I worked in front-line roles and continue to work with families, their loved ones, and organisations who endeavour to create a safe, calm, and happy environment for those supporting and being supported. Low Arousal Fridays I deliver the Low Arousal Approach Foundation course online every Friday (morning and afternoon sessions now available) and Advanced Low Arousal Training with small groups. The Low Arousal Approach is a person-centred, non-confrontational method of managing behaviours indicative of stress and distress. This approach has evolved to become a practical crisis-management approach, not only for people with intellectual disabilities and or autism, but for the care sector in general. Our Low Arousal course focuses on the link between physiological arousal and behaviours of distress, seeking to reduce arousal in crisis situations and therefore de-escalate and manage those distressed behaviours. Our position in Studio 3 is rooted in working with individuals using the least possible restrictions, both physical and in terms of control. We are actively involved with the reduction of restrictive practices, paying particular attention to the avoidance of confrontation. This is primarily achieved by the reduction of stress triggers within the environment or supporters which may physiologically arouse an individual who presents with behaviours of stress. Within Low Arousal Training, we discuss and consider both cognitive and behavioural elements from the perspective of those we may support. At Studio 3, the aim is to challenge care giver beliefs about the short-term management of ‘challenging’ behaviours through restrictive practice, and redirect attention towards stress management and understanding the function a particular behaviour may have for a person who is overwhelmed and close to emotional crisis. These behaviours of stress (which are unique to every individual – at Studio 3 we call this a person’s ‘stress signature’) will allow carers, support teams, and families to develop effective support methods, co-regulate, and role model effective coping strategies. “It can be extremely scary for people to manage an angry and distressed person. Most individuals who are distressed are usually extremely aroused at the time (leading to their reduced ability to process information) and so practitioners of the Low Arousal Approach advise avoiding actions or demands that will further arouse this person: i.e., ‘Don’t pour fuel on the fire.’” – Professor Andrew McDonnell (2018) The Low Arousal Approach creates windows of opportunity for staff, families and individuals being supported to use their knowledge of one another in times of increasing stress to de-escalate and reassure in a safe and compassionate manner. Within both the Foundation and Advanced courses there is a focus on positive psychology in relation to well-being and trauma-informed practice. Low Arousal Approach is continues to be embedded into the care industry, with the approach being taught and implemented on a global level thanks to the power of online training, improving the lives and well-being of individuals and their supporters in meaningful and positive ways. I hope to see many more people join the online cohort of Low Arousal practitioners as we continue to deliver Low Arousal Training at Introductory level every Friday, with morning sessions available from 9.30am UK Time, as well as afternoon sessions on the first Friday of every month. To enquire about small group Advanced training, contact lowarousalfridays@studio3.org. More information about Low Arousal Online Training is available here: www.studio3.org/low-arousal-online Written by Keri Dickson, Lead Studio 3 Trainer

An update from the team at Studio 3 Kerry based in Tralee, Co. Kerry who provide psychological support to families, individuals and services. Who Are We? Studio 3 Kerry is a member of the Studio 3 Group that includes Studio 3 Clinical Services and Training Systems. Based in Tralee, Co. Kerry, our specialised team works to deliver bespoke independent support services to individuals throughout the county. Studio 3 Kerry’s mission is to work with people with different abilities, as well as their families and other service providers. We endeavour to listen to, value, and respect our service users’ wishes, and meet their needs in unique ways that are kind and as stress free as possible. We do this through building open and trusting partnerships, and developing services that are based on best positive practice. Our approaches challenge conventional service-led approaches, as we support our service users to lead their own care and support to the best of their ability. Our team also offers training and consultations to families and practitioners supporting people with additional needs. Our services also extend to professionals working in residential, educational, and foster care environments. Our training is focused around three core models: The Low Arousal Approach Trauma-Informed Care using the Safety, Stability, Repair and Resilience (SSRR) Approach Autism and Neurodivergence Awareness Our dedicated clinical team also offers a variety of assessments and consultations. What the Future Holds 2023 has been a massive year so far for Studio 3 Kerry and our service users. Most notably, one of the individuals we support has completed their transition from their family home into their own home in their community. This significant milestone was successful as a result of incredible hard work from the individual, their family, and their team. This transition plan was the outcome of meticulous planning by the entire Kerry team (aided greatly by the expertise of the family), who took into account the finest elements in order to ensure its success. This year, we hope to expand on this even further by building on the good start and helping the individual to achieve some of their lifelong goals. For more information about the work we do at Studio 3 Kerry, please get in touch with our team using the contact details below. Written by Elaine Griffen and Dylan Hallett, Studio 3 Kerry Contact us: Address 6 High Street, Tralee, Co. Kerry, V92 EP95 Phone: (066) 712 8872 Email: kerry@studio3.org Website: www.studio3.org/contact-studio-3-kerry

In this article, we would like to highlight some recent research and their findings in the area of education. Firstly, we look at the Ask, Listen, Act study which looked into the impact of COVID-19 on children with SEND. Secondly, we explore the government's findings on the educational experiences of children with SEND in England in 2022. Finally we look briefly at the new ICARS report on restraint and seclusion in England schools. 1) The Ask, Listen, Act Study In 2021, the Ask, Listen, Act Study released its findings into the long-term impact of COVID-19 and the accompanying lockdowns on children and young people (CYP) with Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND). This study sought to identify and mitigate the impact of the pandemic on CYP with SEND, and inform the provision of support moving forward. This study consisted of participants ranging from children to parents/carers, education staff, health and social care staff, and local authority staff. Data was collected through surveys, one on one interviews, and creative workshops. Their findings show that, for CYPs with SEND, education was negatively impacted by the pandemic, as most were unable to attend school and online learning was not tailored to their specific needs, and therefore more difficult to navigate. Results also indicate that the government lockdowns had a negative impact on CYPs social skills and communication, and left them feeling ‘lonely and bored.’ Moreover, their physical and emotional well-being also suffered, as health and social care services were either paused or moved online, meaning individuals were therefore unable to access the support they required. Changes in routine, including no longer attending school, caused difficulties for many children and their families, and resulted in highly stressful environments and struggles with emotional well-being. This extended to family members and parents/carers, who found themselves exhausted with no respite care available, meaning that their own health and well-being suffered. However, it was noted that some children who had previously struggled to attend school flourished in their home learning environment, and those few children who did have access to school settings in smaller classrooms found these more tailored to their individual needs and less challenging. Education staff included in the report also stated that they found thechanging rules and guidance challenging, and that they were frustrated by being unable to provide the support and level of care they wished to. The report identified 5 key areas which are paramount to the health and well-being of CYPs with SEND, and which should be built upon moving forward: Right to play, socialise, have fun and be part of the community Right to support for social, emotional and mental health Right to flexibility, choice and support in order to feel safe, included, and supported to learn in school Right to health and social care services and therapies in order to stay healthy Right to support for parents/carers and family The report identified many areas where there are implications for practice, and priorities for recovery and renewal following the Covid-19 pandemic in terms of policies and practice. These included a number of areas within schools and educational environments where practice leaders, teachers, and other educational professionals can enforce change. The report indicates that it should be a requirement for mainstream and specialist schools to deliver mental health prevention and promotion skills for all CYPs with SEND, for example teaching healthy coping strategies and mental health literacy. The report also recommends SEND-specific training for all teaching staff in order to tailor learning to the requirements of the individual, and embed inclusive teaching practices into all classrooms, such as active listening, visual aids, and auditory memory techniques. There should also be training and resources available to allow for a flexible curriculum and delivery that supports children with SEND. In addition, the report suggests that wider skills for children with SEND should be taught and encouraged within schools, such as general life skills, transitioning to adulthood, and work experience. Finally, the report identifies co-production (Morewood, Humphrey, & Symes, 2011) as a key tool for ensuring the needs of SEND pupils are met through daily communication with families in order to accurately anticipate and meet the needs of CYPs with SEND. The full list of priorities can be found here, and the full report and its findings here. 2) Educational experiences of young people with SEND report from the Office for National Statistics (2022) Last year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the UK released the results of study looking into the educational experiences of young people with SEND in England from February – May 2022. In this study, young people in educational settings from ages 11 – 16 and their parents/carers and school staff were asked about their personal experiences with educational systems across England. In particular, this study sought to gain a personal insight into what is working well for the people accessing education, and where there are areas for improvement. This qualitative study produced some interesting results, and is an excellent effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice, magnifying the voices of young people and their supporters to work out where the system meets, and fails to meet, their needs. Gareth D. Morewood, Educational Adviser for Studio 3 and our lead trainer in the LASER programme, was part of a steering group for this research, the full report of which can be found here (a young person friendly summary of the report is also available here). The undertaking of this research had a focus on representing the views of young people themselves following the Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) identifying gaps in similar research in 2021 in terms of how much data in this field represents the voices of young people. The importance of lived experience in informing systems cannot be overstated, and this report’s detailed interviews and focus groups have certainly attempted to bridge that gap. Parents, carers, and educational staff were also interviewed in this study, with participants from a range of educational settings including mainstream, special and residential schools, alternative provision, and elective home education, providing a well-rounded and inclusive view of educational systems in England. The results of this study show a number of areas where SEND pupils feel provision is working for them, as well as highlighted a number of key areas where more needs to be done to meet the individual needs of every pupil struggling in educational environments. Below, we have highlighted a few key points that we find to be particularly prudent, but we do encourage you to read the full report for the full findings. Firstly, when it came to SEND awareness in schools, the study found that many pupils were not only very aware of the additional needs and supports they required in educational environments, but that many had also developed strategies of their own to support them in school. Pupils cited ear defenders for sensitivity to noise, fidgeting and doodling to improve concentration, and other strategies to minimise distress and cope with challenging aspects of the learning environment. Unfortunately, pupils described how some of these self-soothing techniques were often viewed as ‘distracting’ or ‘disruptive’ by teachers: ‘If you know that you have to fidget with things to concentrate, tell the teacher that you have to do this certain thing. Because if you want me to do well in your class, I'm not going to do well if I'm just sat there staring at the board.’ This highlights a need for teachers to understand and make space for emotional regulation strategies, and more so for that understanding to be built in to teachers’ training and development around supporting SEND pupils. As Elly Chapple would say, it is essential that we ‘flip the narrative’ on how we view behaviour, particularly when certain behaviours are necessary coping strategies and not, as is often assumed, ‘bad’ behaviour. Another key theme this study identified was that many SEND pupils and their supporters felt that they were constantly battling against the ‘naughty child’ narrative in schools. Many pupils described experiences of their behaviour being inaccurately perceived by teachers, demonstrating an overall lack of SEND education for teachers: ‘Teachers were like 'Yeah, I explained that once I'm not explaining that again, because you weren't listening.' But they don't really realise that you've got to have it repeated for you to maybe understand a little bit more.’ The negative consequences on a pupil caused by not having their needs understood or met can be manifold, and difficult to reverse. Labeling children as ‘bad’ or ‘naughty’ because they require additional support only punishes those pupils for being different, something they are keenly aware of as is. As much as many of the young people in this study just wanted to be seen as ‘normal kids,’ these fears are bound up in how their differences negatively set them apart from their classmates. Viewing difference positively and not as a justification for mistreatment, lower expectations and fewer opportunities is the key to better supporting SEND pupils, and allowing them to flourish in mainstream settings. This requires promoting inclusion on a whole-school level, with open discussion and education around SEND to raise awareness amongst staff and pupils, and build acceptance of individual differences as part of an inclusive school culture. On the other hand, good things schools did to help SEND pupils manage their emotions and discomfort included teachers who listened and understood their self-regulation strategies, staff who made children feel comfortable sharing their feelings and asking for help, and access to sensory rooms/safe environments. It should be noted however that ‘safe spaces’ can only operate as so when pupils have open access to these spaces as they require, not when they are forced into them to ‘calm down’ during a crisis. Pupils and supporters also identified the need for facilities and environmental factors to support SEND children, including accessibility features such as lifts and ramps, but also comfortable chairs and controlled temperatures, which can make a huge difference to the sensory experience of all learners and teachers. Young people and their supporters also highlighted the need for flexibility within SEND provision, as each young person has different needs and interests. ‘A recurrent theme from young participants, parents, carers and staff was that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to support does not work when young peoples' needs and preferences are so varied.’ Most notably, pupils identified that lessons in their preferred learning styles (audio, visual, tactile, practical) helped them to retain information better than those that involved lots of reading and writing. Pupils also found that smaller classes were better as they were able to get more support and help from teachers without feeling rushed. However, due to under-staffing, lack of funding and lack of access to resources that lots of schools face, it is understandable that these needs cannot always be met. There were however small, day-to-day changes identified by pupils that if implemented could address the need for flexible support for SEND pupils. For example, it was suggested that, if necessary, pupils should be allowed to modify their uniforms if they find them restrictive and uncomfortable. Again, ‘one-size-fits-all’ cannot work where neurodiversity is concerned, so giving pupils the freedom to bend rules that are, after all, often negligible is essential. And remember, if something is uncomfortable and dysregulatory for SEND pupils, the chances are that other pupils will be struggling with it too. The parents and carers of SEND pupils who participated in this study also highlighted a number of issues around SEND provision in mainstream and specialist schools. Parents and carers identified that access to additional support was in many cases denied until pupils had formal diagnoses. The complexity and lengthiness of the process of obtaining a diagnosis makes accessing the necessary support almost impossible, and even when children do have a diagnosis to back up their plea for support, this is not always ensured. Overall, there is a call to personalise these processes and tailor support to each individual, as well as to reduce the inflexibility around SEND provision and the need to formally prove that one’s child is eligible for the help they require in class. Additional support individualised to the child’s needs should be the norm for every pupil who is struggling in school, neurodiverse or not, as kind, compassionate and tailored support can only help those struggling in education. Parents and carers also identified an over-focus on academic achievements, with some children being denied additional supports on account of them performing adequately in educational outcomes. The need for additional support can encompass many areas, and a child who is getting by well in class may miss out on fundamental support that could help them flourish at school. Pupils also identified the importance of being accepted and integrated into the social world of the school as a key factor in the extent to which they felt a sense of belonging and inclusion. Pupils who did not have friends at school described feeling isolated at break times and generally like an ‘outsider.’ Whilst buddy systems were useful for some, others found them awkward and uncomfortable, and there was a general consensus that these schemes must be voluntary and that pupils should have a choice over who they buddy up with in order to avoid some of this awkwardness. Pupils felt positively about groups to encourage friendship building, such as summer schools and afterschool/lunch clubs. Again, pupils felt that awareness and acceptance of neurodiversity was a fundamental factor in whether these groups were successful or not. In general, championing awareness and accessibility would enable SEND pupils to get more out of these groups, as well as enable them to attend school events and trips which lack of awareness and accommodation for their needs can sometimes prevent them from attending. Negative interactions with other pupils were identified as one of the main reasons that could cause a SEND pupil to feel negativity towards school. The study found that bullying, meanness, gossiping, exclusion and judgement had a profound effect on learning and well-being. Pupils suggested raising awareness about the impact of bullying, and that staff use interventions such as mediation and discussions between pupils to prevent continued bullying. Many pupils felt bullying was often ignored by staff, or that their responses were ineffective in preventing its continuation. Overall, this study shares the views of pupils, parents and carers who have experience of how SEND provision in schools can make or break a child’s educational experience. Whilst there are immense pressures on mainstream and specialist schools in terms of staffing and funding, there are simple changes that can be made to make educational settings a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all. Pupils stated that simple friendliness and greetings every morning from staff were a key component in making them feel welcome, accepted and cared for. This study highlights the urgent need for SEND education across schools and other educational settings in England, with many schools still ill-equipped to meet the needs of neurodiverse pupils. At Studio 3, we believe that a Low Arousal culture can only benefit everyone within it, but this is especially true for our SEND children who are sensitive to the chaos of daily life in a school. Raising awareness amongst every person in a school culture about neurodiversity will help SEND pupils feel more comfortable and confident asking for the help that they require, and ultimately allow for greater access to support from teachers and fellow pupils alike. Again, we would encourage you to read the full report and all its findings on the ONS website here. 3) The ICARS Report: Restraint and Seclusion in England's Schools A recent study from the International Coalition Against Restraint and Seclusion shows data from 560 families across England who have shared their experiences of restraint and seclusion in schools in England. The full report, available here, is a sobering read. Written by Rachel McDermott Studio 3 Social Media and Information Coordinator

Below are a series of events occurring in the next few months which we would like to highlight for families and professionals interested in SEND provision in Education. Uncommon Well-Being Programmes Uncommon is a neurodivergent-led organisation that supports the mental health and well-being of neurodivergent young people. They are currently running a series of 3-week online well-being programmes for neurodivergent young people in years 7-9 who experience school avoidance. The sessions cover topics like building confidence, managing anxiety, and feeling positive about friendships. These programmes are informal, relaxed and relatable. Run by experienced neurodivergent facilitators, each session also has a neurodivergent university student that participants can talk to. They're all designed to be low demand - young people can choose how they take part, whether that's cameras on or off, interacting or just watching. Uncommon’s services are clinically supervised and their session materials are clinically reviewed. The programme has received great feedback, and young people who often struggle to make it into school are asking for more sessions. Book your session here: https://www.bemoreuncommon.com/confidence-sessions Bryanston's Education Summit, Wednesday 7th June Bryanston’s Education Summit is a firm favourite on the education calendar and returns on Wednesday 7 June 2023. With a theme exploring how to help young people to ‘Learn to Love Your Mind’, the event presents a unique opportunity for educators, students and experts to come together and exchange ideas, insights and best practices in the field of education. Providing invaluable CPD, we promise a day full of creative thinking that will liberate you as teachers, leaders and advocates for children. Spend the day away from the classroom talking to colleagues and collecting new ideas to take back into your everyday practice. The full list of speakers and ticket booking information can be found here: www.bryanston.co.uk/educationsummit The SEND Leadership Conference, Wednesday 12th July Whole Education are excited to invite you to our SEND Leadership Conference on 12th July at University of Warwick. The event brings together over a hundred SENCOs together with locality leads, MAT leads and a range of experts including David Bartram, Natalie Packer, Gareth Morewood, and Marc Rowland The conference will explore strategic leadership of SEND in schools, as well as how simple and effective school-based processes can improve outcomes for learners with SEND. Full price: £199, Early Bird: £99. Info and booking link: https://wholeeducation.org/the-send-leadership-conference Optimus Education SEND Provision Conference, Tuesday 23rd May Join Gareth Morewood, Educational Advisor at Studio III, and many more expert speakers at Optimus Education’s SEND Provision conference for a day packed with poignant keynotes, informative workshops and opportunities for networking to discuss and share best practice. Ensure you have a whole school SEND approach and hear from experts on emotionally based School avoidance, how to improve communication with parents and how to support the mental health and wellbeing of your pupils with SEND. Join us on 23 May at the America Square Conference Centre, London for engaging sessions to bolster your confidence and plan your next steps as a leader. Sign up here: https://my.optimus-education.com/conferences/send-provision-london

In this article, two families share their experiences of education and applying the Low Arousal Approach with young people, and the impact this has had on their lives. A Low Arousal Approach to Education, By Rachel 'First, a bit of background: I am a late diagnosed autistic parent to three amazing adults, the youngest of whom is also diagnosed as autistic. I think it’s fair to say we are a neurodivergent family. I work very part time as a SEND advisor for a small Midlands-based charity called Talking SENse!, and when I can I run ‘next level’ autism training. This includes training specifically around demand avoidance and, more recently, around being female and autistic. I am also a Studio 3 Ambassador. Those are not my main jobs though; my main job is being a parent/carer/educator and more to our youngest young person, who for the purposes of this article I will call H. For the last eight years we have been home educating, and since 2020 we have had a very small therapeutic EOTAS package of six (yes, six) hours per week funded by our Local Authority. Our journey into Low Arousal began somewhere, but I am not entirely sure where or when. Standard parenting and education systems never really worked for H, so over time we slipped into something that we now know as Low Arousal. H demonstrate very high levels of stress in everyday life from a very young age. Us completing household chores such as vacuuming, using a blender, drilling a hole and using the lawn mower caused massive sensory overload and would lead to uncontrollable sobbing and distressed behaviours such as shouting, screaming, and aggressive outbursts. Luckily we were quick learners, and instead of trying to get H used to these things we found other ways to manage. We spent lots of time tag-team parenting in the early days, and one of us would often hold H while the other quickly did the jobs, or one of us would take H out and the other would rush around trying to get as much done as possible. There were similar issues with clothes, especially trousers and shorts with buttons inside to tighten them, so I learned to sew and made everything into elastic waists. Food issues were scary at first, but when a health visitor suggested keeping a food diary over a week and we were able to see that in fact eating nothing but cheese and cherry tomatoes some days and only marmite sandwiches on other days actually worked out to be covering a few food groups at least, so we stopped worrying about that pretty soon into weaning. I think we naturally fell into a rhythm of Low Arousal at home, even though we didn’t know at the time that that was what we were doing. However, the world became a whole lot more complicated when H had to go to school. Pre-school had been a challenge and we had never managed to get beyond three morning sessions per week. Even though H was excited to choose their lunch box and we filled it with their favourite food items, the idea of eating in the pre-school environment was just too much and H shut down. Obviously this did not bode well for full time school, and in fact it was a disaster. From the first week of full days, H struggled to attend every single day. They had to be physically removed from me and would be dragged kicking and screaming in through the doors. Once they escaped and ran out of the school. My one regret is that I took them back that day. I wish I had removed them and never gone back but we did and we continued to take them until they broke. From the day we removed H from the school system until now we have lived a Low Arousal lifestyle one hundred percent of the time. Our home education package was built around H’s interests - everything we did was in consultation with H and with their agreement. We offered opportunities but never forced or coerced H to join in. We encouraged and supported H to make planned visits and trips to places they wanted to see including a two-week trip to Scotland, various trips to Wales, the North East of England, and more recently Shetland and the Lake District. We built in quiet days and days with no demands. We recognised that life is exhausting for H and we needed to make sure that they had enough rest in between activities. We were criticised by some people for not doing ‘school’ at home, but we knew H was learning and could see them making developmental leaps that hadn’t been made in all the time H was in school. We didn’t record on paper what our days looked like other than the most basic of timetables, but we took thousands of photographs from everywhere we went and everything we did. Probably the most important thing H learned during those early months of home education was how to say no! Whilst many school children are measured by their compliance even when complying is agonising for them physically and mentally, by adopting a Low Arousal lifestyle we were able to give H the freedom to say no to things that were too much. I first heard the term Low Arousal at around the time we removed H from school. When I went to the Autism West Midlands conference, Bo Hejlskov Elvén was speaking about Low Arousal and I realised that what we were doing was actually a thing! I was so happy that other people thought this was a good idea, because it was certainly the right way for us to be. Over time, I attended events run by Studio 3 and Gareth Morewood. I spoke at Gareth’s Brew Ed about how home education had fitted the Low Arousal model for us, and how we were totally converted to a different way of life. We never make direct demands on H, we live collaboratively and try to make sure that we are equal decision makers, even more so now that H is an adult. We have learned how to rephrase our communication so that nothing is or appears to be directly demanding. The pressure of demands can make H panic and almost always lead to them being unable to do whatever was being requested. Once embedded, the way we use language became natural to us and now it feels wrong to make direct demands to another person. H now has three amazing professionals supporting them after five years of pretty much all their support coming from me and their dad. All of the professionals who work with H are totally on board with Low Arousal and Acceptance and all have built great working relationships with H. In the time H has been working with these three people, there has been a handful of times when H hasn’t been able to go or hasn’t coped with the sessions – the same person who screamed and kicked and had to be carried or coerced into school for years. Something we have been asked over the years and that I hear from other parents is, “But how will they manage in the real world?” I don’t know where this ‘real’ world, is but the one we live in is autism-friendly, accepting, and is based around Low Arousal. We struggle with the non-autistic world but we dip in and out as we need to. We try to avoid it as much as possible because it doesn’t really work for us. I think for me, the most important part of Low Arousal is the improved opportunity to build strong relationships. When no person is more powerful and each individual has the right to say no and for that to be respected, trust grows and fear diminishes. When people are no longer in constant fight, flight, or freeze and feel safe, they can have head space to learn, to grow, and to be happy.' Supporting Young People to Flourish, by Anonymous 'I write as an autistic mother to my autistic child, and also as a teacher from a mainstream background. I fully acknowledge and accept that my perspective is not that of my child, and my experience is not hers. My writing and perspective comes from witnessing and observing her experiences only at this time. However, until my child is able to, and indeed chooses to, share her experience, I hope to advocate for change in how autistic young people are treated, and add to the growing plethora of evidence in support of eradicating restraint and seclusion in our schools. To understand how the Low Arousal Approach has supported our young person to flourish, it is important to outline briefly our past. Only last year, my daughter (L), experienced great stressors that left her suffering frequent nose bleeds, sickness, and incontinence. Daily tasks such as brushing teeth, dressing and bathing, brushing hair etc were not easily tolerated without experiencing panic and discomfort. L’s eating had become only nibbles of 5 food items, two of those being milkshakes and water. L’s well-being had deteriorated to such an extent that even leaving the family home for her previously favourite enjoyable activities became impossible. As a family, we reached out to numerous professionals for support, including her school setting and closely linked professionals. Their advice was “push through the trauma,” alongside their advice to “stop cuddling her to sleep” and to remove L’s person of emotional support, which went against our morals and better judgement. The advice was to take control and force L against her will to conform, with demonstrations provided of “how its done.” Due to threats of removal of my child I was in no position to challenge the professionals, however enabling their (in our opinion) abuse, by not challenging this, was not an option. L’s school was an independent specialist setting that was not only a school setting but offered a care setting for other autistic young persons also. The cost to the Local Authority (in excess of £50,000 for a school placement only) led to the interpretation that the school and its associated professionals were experts and therefore best placed to advise on the well-being of autistic young people such as L. All professionals we approached for support believed this to be true, as opposed to questioning their methods and approach in light of such a large financial gain. In contrast to data suggesting that restraint occurs primarily in mainstream settings due to lack of autistic and Special Education Needs (SEN) knowledge by staff and other pupils, L’s specialist setting resorted to restraint and restrictive practices as their first and foremost approach, alongside ABA and later PBS. L was exposed to traumatic events, witnessing and experiencing first hand restraint and restrictive practices within her school setting. When challenged, the school excused, minimised, and dismissed the events as acceptable as “her lips didn’t turn blue” when L’s screaming stopped and she went silent mid restraint. Although we witnessed (and tried to object to and stop) restraint being used on L on multiple occasions, we do not have access to data or reports on each incident of restraint. This is largely due to “no legal obligation on schools to keep record when restraint is used, or even to tell parents about serious incidents of restraint involving force” (Radio 5 Live, 2017: 14.41-14.50 mins). This is further exacerbated by there not being an accepted definite explanation or definition of what restraint is. This was fully exploited by the school to escape any consequences. The result was parental blame with threats to remove my child and, most concerning, a child experiencing trauma on a regular basis, with no support in place. Studio 3 were the only professionals to offer any support in terms of Low Arousal training for our family with trauma-led advice and approaches. This was life changing: despite being unable to change some external factors, we focused on changing what was within our control. We fought for a new setting using our new knowledge and understanding from the training we had received, alongside support from Studio 3’s contacts and wealth of expertise. In response to all the arguments raised by the current setting’s professionals, we were able to advocate that a different setting using the Low Arousal Approach and in line with LASER training would be key to overcoming any arguments against L leaving their setting. Professionals who don’t resort to restraint or use restrictive practise became a crucial starting point from which to build L’s trust and confidence in others, as any relationship with the previous setting’s staff was beyond repair or salvage due to their behaviour and treatment of L. Without Studio 3’s backing and training, we would not have been successful, let alone found the strength to hope and try. We found a mainstream school that largely followed the LASER Approach already and offered a Low Arousal Approach as the standard for all pupils. L’s younger sibling was already in attendance, so we had first-hand experience of the new school’s approach in how they had supported L’s sibling. L was able to visit the setting each school day whilst accompanying her sibling to and from this school. On approaching the new school grounds, L was not greeted by numerous large male figures in dark clothing and high vis vests wearing unwelcoming expressions, and nor was she greeted by other over-bearing figures physically transferring pupils from the car park straight into the building. L was not greeted by pupils displaying observable stress signals whilst other staff ran around with walkie talkies. L was not dragged by several members of staff from the vehicle, and left to remain in soiled or wet clothing all day, stained from nose bleeds or vomit and tears. Instead, L was able to play on the playground equipment alongside her sibling and other pupils, which enabled L and indeed all pupils to regulate through proprioceptive activities before even approaching the building or staff. L’s experience within this setting in the very limited time she was present enabled her to observe the new school staff’s pleasantries, open body language, and the interactions between professionals who didn’t use restrictive practices, even with the few pupils who were showing observable signs of upset, worry, and stress. It gave her validation, a glimpse into how life could be for her too, and a realisation of how young people should be treated by professionals, in complete contrast to her traumatic experiences. After observing L within this setting, and communicating with L about her thoughts and feelings with regard to this being her new school setting, it was clear to our family that this was the right decision and way forward. However, one last hurdle was to be overcome. The new setting had communicated with the old school, and was heavily pressured into believing their statements that L was to remain within their setting and could not be given an opportunity to leave. Thankfully, with expert advice and support from Studio 3’s independent contact, the new setting overturned their decision to deny L a placement in their school. The short snippet of time spent within the proposed school setting allowed us to see the child she could become in the new setting. It also enabled L to hope and gave her the strength to get through each day in the old setting, working towards a start date at the new school and crucially, an end date to her abusive treatment at the hands of the so-called experts. Fast forward to now and L is thriving. Since the end date, she found the strength to begin horse riding over the summer transition period, and began to build a fantastic trusting relationship with the adults and peers within the riding centre setting. L is now a confident rider and finds regulation, enjoyment and comfort in her horses. Since then, L has become a member of the ballet school with regular dance classes, and a confident piano player with a trusting relationship with her piano teacher. L began full days immediately in the new school in full uniform and participated in all learning activities, much to the surprise of the new school. L made new friendships immediately and accepted invitations to her very first ever friend’s birthday party. Every concern cited by the last setting L has proven wrong. L has begun to form trusting bonds with adults in her new setting despite the trauma she has experienced previously. The new school has remarked on the difference they have observed for themselves between L in the last setting and now, and praise L for her strength, achievements and character. L has disproved every statement from the last setting, to such an extent that she is one of the top achieving pupils in her year, and a valued friend amongst her peers. The professionals now state L is not to be underestimated and reward L with small tokens for her amazing achievements in such a short space of time. L is educating all about being an autistic young person, and how it is entirely possible to thrive within the right mainstream setting. L’s experience should demonstrate the need to eradicate restraint and restrictive practice, challenge those who do engage in this, and question the financial gain of private settings and the conflict of interest when advising and leading all other professionals with regard to autistic young persons’ well-being and lives.'

Studio 3 reviews 'Championing Your Autistic Teen at Secondary School: Getting the Best from Mainstream Settings' (2022) by Debby Elley with Gareth D Morewood This recent publication from Jessica Kingsley Publishers (available online here) sees Debby Elley, co-founder and co-editor of AuKids Magazine, and Gareth D Morewood, Educational Adviser to Studio 3, team up to provide a comprehensive guide to supporting autistic teenagers in their transition to and placement within secondary school settings. From their combined perspectives of parent and teacher, the pair decided to write this book in response to a plethora of queries from parents and carers about supporting the transition to secondary school, and how to advocate for the best possible outcomes in their young person’s new setting. Throughout this book, Debby and Gareth emphasise the importance of co-production, and that only by families and schools working together can a shared, open and communicative approach be attained for autistic learners. The authors provide advice and support for creating inclusive learning environments, identifying and collaborating with inclusive secondary schools, and some common hurdles autistic students may face and how to overcome them. The foreword, written by Peter Vermeulen, highlights the need for inclusive education, particularly in mainstream settings, where autistic children are more likely to be bullied, isolated, and relegated to the periphery of the social world of the school without proper systems in place to build an inclusive environment – ‘a society that leaves no-one behind.’ Unfortunately, where there are only good intentions for including autistic children and providing equal chances for learning and developing, a lack of school policies and practices fail to create cultures where this is possible: ‘The thing is, good intentions alone will not get you very far. What is needed is knowledge about strategies to realise inclusion in practice. Practical tips to ensure that autistic children can thrive at school and that they love to go to school.’ That, as Peter states, is where this book comes in to offer advice, support and guidance for parents and teachers alike: ‘It does not offer a complicated academic analysis of all the possible difficulties and barriers that can pop up when an autistic student goes to school. Instead, it offers a wealth of useful and easily applicable tips. Tips that come from a lived experience with autism, a thorough knowledge of how autistic students experience the world in general and school in particular and – above all – a respect for all parties in the inclusion story: the student, the parents and the teachers.’ Indeed, this book contains a positive focus on practical methods for families and teachers to apply to improve well-being, boost confidence, and ultimately make a child’s time at school more rewarding and compassionate. From choosing the right setting for your child and building collaborative relationships, to overcoming common hurdles in secondary school and communicating difficulties in ways that will encourage productive and proactive responses, this book is an essential guide for families and teachers supporting autistic children through secondary education. Included throughout are step-by-step guides, checklists, charts, and links to further resources to help you along the way. The first portion of the book focuses on choosing the right secondary setting for your young person by outlining some key signs you should look for when choosing a school. The authors indicate a number of ‘danger signs’ to look out for, such as notices and posters which show a punitive focus on behaviour, as well as green flags such as openness to try things in a new way, and a willingness to learn and adapt, which is key. ‘If school staff are willing to listen to you and work with you to tailor their approaches to suit your child’s needs, they don’t have to be autism experts in order to be effective.’ Creating learning environments that encourage autistic pupils to thrive may seem like a daunting task for teachers, but as Debby and Gareth point out, even under-funded mainstream schools can make small but effective changes in order to be more inclusive. The first step, of course, is ensuring that every adult in the setting has some knowledge of autism, and how this may impact a learner’s needs, behaviour, and ability to cope throughout the school day. ‘Schools need better resources, training and management when it comes to SEND: there’s no question of this.’ In any setting that supports autistic learners, constant consistency is key, as Gareth says throughout the book. ‘It’s only when all features of a setting work in harmony that an inclusive system really works,’ he states. Teachers should have an understanding of how autism and other SEND can impact learning, such as sensory processing and communication needs. Children should be taught self-regulation and interoception skills as part of their toolkit at secondary school, and teachers should be able to identify and manage distress before it builds up. This involves, amongst many other strategies, creating a Low Arousal environment throughout the school. Remember, ‘an autism-friendly school is identical to a student-friendly school’ says Peter. At Studio 3, we have always stated that everyone benefits from low-key, calm, Low Arousal environments where understanding, communication and compassion are key. Creating calm, stress-free environments where sensory stressors are proactively managed allows for greater learning opportunities, and evens the playing field for autistic pupils. A great example Gareth uses is that of school bells to signal the end of a period – in an age where everyone uses watches, there is no need to create chaos and panic every 50 minutes! There is an emphasis on ensuring families and teachers are well prepared in the lead up to transitioning to a new setting, including making early connections with key staff and developing a narrative about your child before they have entered the new setting. This will ensure that staff are aware of what methods have worked in the past from primary school or at home, and can begin to implement them from Day 1. The book provides a detailed guide to starting these conversations without conflict, and maintaining good relationships between schools and families throughout the child’s education. Co-production is key. Sometimes, it can feel like you are in an ongoing battle, but in reality, you are both working to provide the best education for your young person: ‘Families may not have all the answers, and teachers may scratch their heads, too, but your pooled experience will bring more in the way of solutions than just one person’s reflections. It’s essential also to listen to the voices of young people themselves, finding out what is challenging for them and designing solutions together.’ By asking for openness and honesty, and providing the same in return, you increase opportunities for young people, and move one step closer to solving problems as a team. When communication breaks down, the authors provide a guide for navigating conflict with the carer/school, and provide solutions for avoiding misunderstandings, ensuring productive communication, and navigating differences of opinion. The book demonstrates common assumptions families and teachers can make about one another, and encourages empathy and compassion as a means of better understanding and co-production. The book encourages you to advocate for your child, despite what ‘experts’ may say. ‘The expert on your child is you,’ encourages Debby, and you will know their needs better than anyone else. Advocate for the level of support you know they need, and encourage them to advocate for themselves too. Including your child at the centre of all decision-making that involves their future and empowering them to make their own choices will make all the difference. Debby and Gareth also emphasise the importance of including peer groups in SEND education, and for non-autistic pupils to have an understanding of neurodiversity and the ways in which their classmates might do things differently from them: ‘By giving adequate peer training, including an explanation of how the demands of an environment can overload an autistic person, schools can ensure that other pupils won’t need to ask constant questions, singling out one individual for unwanted attention.’ The book also shares the experiences of Alfie Bowen, a photographer who struggled growing up autistic in mainstream education. It is extremely important to learn from people with lived experience in order to improve provision for the children of the future: after all, those who have lived through it know best. Alfie’s insight demonstrates that mainstream education can be an alienating experience for many autistic learners when their needs, interests, and differences are not recognised, met, and celebrated by their school setting: ‘I remember so many years of my mainstream education were spent sitting in a class with other students, being taught at their level rather than at mine, and that experience had a significant impact on me and my educational journey – I got frustrated, lost interest and withdrew not just educationally but also socially.’ Equal opportunities cannot be provided if education is not tailored to the level, needs, and interest of the individual. In addition, the curriculum needs to be flexible in a way that enables every pupil to thrive, not only those talented in academic subjects such as Maths and English. Academic success should not be the marker of ability, and individualised timetables offering additional subjects of interest and importance to pupils should be available. Alfie speaks about doing badly in exams, and says he realises now that ‘this didn’t mean I was unintelligent, it just meant that I was forced into a system that failed to highlight my intelligence.’ In conclusion, this book is a comprehensive guide to supporting autistic children and young people through secondary school, which covers a lot of ground for families and teachers alike. The authors share their knowledge in a clear and concise way, and the book is full of practical tips for families and teachers to implement in order to support autistic children to thrive at school and at home. The resources provided throughout are excellent tools to easily apply in practice, and we would highly recommend this book for educational staff in secondary school settings – mainstream and specialist – as well as parents and carers with a young person transitioning to or already implemented in secondary level education. In this book, the authors share their vision of a better future where SEND provision is engrained into every educational setting, and neurodiversity awareness and acceptance is the norm. Whilst we may not be there yet in every setting in the UK, we can begin to implement the practices within this book into our schools, starting with the simple things: working together, communicating honestly and productively, and being more aware of autistic pupils’ needs and how to meet them. ‘We can be planning for a better future – a future in which SEND isn’t sidelined but becomes part of policy and planning at every level.’ Get your copy now from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, or from your local bookseller. Written by Rachel McDermott Studio 3 Social Media and Information Coordinator

Lee Boyce comments on recent work by the Barking and Dagenham Local Authority to support young people with special education needs and disabilities (SEND) in mainstream schools. The SEMH Handbook can be accessed via the BDSIP website here. ‘Lose the child from their school and we lose the child.’ - Roger Mitchell, Head of Ripple Primary The latest data on permanent exclusions and suspensions in England for the autumn term 2021/22, published by the Department for Education on 24th November 2022, shows that the highest rate of suspensions is for students with an EHC plan at 6.37, followed by those with Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) without an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan at 6.31. For all students, the suspension rate is 2.21. The highest rate of permanent exclusions is for students with Special Education Needs (SEN) but no EHC plan at 0.08, with students with an EHC plan being excluded at a rate of 0.05. For all students, the permanent exclusion rate is 0.03. This disproportionality of exclusions and suspensions of students with SEND is reflected in Barking and Dagenham, where students with identified Social, Emotional, and Mental Health (SEMH) needs have the highest rates in this cohort. Keen to address the issue, the Local Authority redesignated an SEMH Working Group with Roger Mitchell (Head of Ripple Primary School) as the chair, and a membership drawn from across education, health, social care and third sector organisations who support our young people and schools in Barking and Dagenham. A vocal advocate for inclusion, Roger was keen to use the collective expertise of this group to strengthen universal provision and High Quality First teaching in our schools. However, it quickly became apparent that we needed to provide a framework for what ‘good’ looks like before we could embark on developing training opportunities to strengthen local expertise. From this vision, the redesigned SEMH Handbook was born. Located in Barking and Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham School Improvement Partnership (BDSIP) is a not-for-profit organisation, majority schools-owned and schools-led, which specialises in providing professional services for education through a team of experts who have all been leaders in their field. Therefore, armed with 28 years in education with the experience of roles ranging from teaching assistant to Head of English to SENCO to senior leader in mainstream and an SEMH provision, BDSIP’s commission to produce the SEMH Handbook fell to Lee Boyce, Principal Adviser for Education and Inclusion. From the outset, it was agreed that the SEMH Handbook needed to address six key areas to act as a framework for successful inclusion: The causes of SEMH needs A model that allows teachers to appreciate the interrelated factors that need to be considered when developing effective provision in every classroom What can happen for these students when we do not meet their needs A reframing of the perception of behaviours which leads to suspension and exclusion The key pillars for building effective universal provision and high quality first teaching for SEMH The need to raise aspirations for adulthood to support them to connect the ‘here and now’ with their future success. ‘It isn’t exhaustive by any means but a concise guide to the minimum we should be doing in schools.’ – Lee Boyce The handbook acts as a comprehensive guide for educators, and indeed all professionals working with children and young people, to begin to unpick medical models of behaviour, where the focus is on the behaviour itself, and move beyond ‘labels’ to embrace an understanding of how attachment, trauma, peer group dynamics, and negative experiences can impact developmental, social, emotional, cognitive, self-regulatory and self-esteem growth, especially in children. There is a discussion of the ways in which children and young people with SEMH needs may behave but with a positive encouragement to see all behaviour as communication of unmet needs. Armed with this understanding, there is an emphasis on the need to develop High Quality First Teaching approaches, by firstly ensuring that all adults are trained in the underlying causes of SEMH needs and then provided with the tools to ensure they are providing a classroom culture that will support those children who have experienced trauma or who are struggling with their sense of wellbeing. The key features of High Quality First Teaching are: How to respond with empathy and be an emotionally available adult who is always available, consistent, fair, reassuring, safe and resilient How to create a culture of nurture How stress and trauma affect the child or young person’s ability to learn How to use the Low Arousal approach to ensure that learners feel safe, secure, seen and soothed. This includes a practical definition of the approach, with checklists to assess a range of factors that might be causing distressed behaviour so that schools can develop appropriate plans to avoid crisis situations The need to approach children and their families in a non-judgemental way, instead building a culture of collaboration which seeks to offer a holistic package of support to address all identified needs The key principles of restorative approaches Supporting learners with SEMH to develop resilience To support schools to access the knowledge they need, the handbook also signposts resources and training opportunities, such as free certified online ACEs training. ‘The most powerful healer for attachment difficulties is a nurturing, consistent, non-judgmental environment which allows children and young people to feel safe, accepted and able to learn, both personally and academically.’ Teachers will be able to use the handbook to support their own professional learning journey, while leaders can use it to identify what specific training needs to be in place to ensure that learners with SEMH feel that they belong in their school. Educational adviser for Studio 3, Gareth D. Morewood, speaks often about the importance of implementing approaches at a whole-school level but that this requires top-down, bottom-up commitment from staff at every level of the school system. Supporting children with SEMH must be embedded in the ethos of the setting using a whole-school approach to well-being so that the school is a safe and affirming place for children and young people to develop a sense of belonging and trust. 'Consistent, calm approaches are hugely effective, and this requires a collective and unified approach from management and frontline staff alike.' - Gareth Morewood Finally, the handbook addresses the need to develop an aspirational SEND curriculum which supports learners with SEMH to maintain high aspirations of what they can achieve, and provide opportunities for work-related learning to support them to connect what they do now to their future success. The full SEMH Handbook can be found on the BDSIP website. Written by Lee Boyce, Principal Adviser of Education and Inclusion, BDSIP

This short educational video describes the real, lived experience of a young person who has witnessed physical restraint in a school setting. (Please note that the following article and video contain descriptions of restraint and other restrictive practices that some readers might find distressing). In this video, a young person describes their experience of witnessing pupils being restrained in school. In a discussion with his parent about how teachers manage children’s behaviour, the young person states that he does not like ‘arm wrestling,’ the term he uses to describe physical restraint. His mum asks what he means by this term, and he explains that he does not like when teachers ‘grab and pull’ young people, use ‘full body control’ to move the young person against their will, or ‘block’ them from escaping, leaving pupils feeling ‘cornered.’ Restraint and seclusion are a massive issue in mainstream and specialist schools across the UK, Ireland, and the United States. Whilst policies about the use of restraint vary in different regions, there is a general rule that restrictive interventions should only be used as the last resort and when there is a threat of physical harm to staff, other pupils, or the young person themselves. However, in reality, restraint is over-used in many school settings, and in cultures where restrictive interventions are normalised, the ‘last resort’ often becomes the first (Deveau & McDonnell, 2009). Inclusion Ireland (2018) reported a number of case studies showing how children in schools had been forcibly restrained and secluded on a number of occasions, often being held down by multiple adults on a regular basis, and in one instance for 20 minutes at a time. Beth Morrison, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Positive & Active Behaviour Support Scotland (PABSS), spoke on Radio 5 Live Investigates about her son Callum’s treatment at a specialist school in Dundee, where he was held in a prone (face-down) restraint and sustained horrific injuries at the age of 10 (Radio 5 Live, 2017). Sadly, instances of restraint and seclusion in schools are all too familiar to families of pupils with additional needs. A report carried out by The Challenging Behaviour Foundation (CBF) and PABSS found that of the 720 children’s families who responded to an anonymous questionnaire, 87.5% had experienced restraint and 60.7% had experienced seclusion (CBF & PABSS, 2020). Crucially, most children in this study had one or more additional needs. These statistics demonstrate a gross over-use of restrictive practices on disabled and autistic populations in educational environments, often for no real reason. The same study found that the majority of reasons given for reported instances of restrictive interventions were ‘unclear’ (72.1%), with only 14.4% of reports citing a specific reason: ‘The reasons reported for the use of restrictive interventions were mostly unclear or vague and several did not appear to indicate they were used in extreme and immediate instances to protect the child from harming themselves or others. For example, several reasons appeared to describe events which had minimal risk of harm, such as low-level incidents or non-compliance e.g. “refusing to work” “swearing” “spitting” “fidgeting” “not sitting” “upset.”’ (p.24) One case study reports that ‘Annie’ experienced 158 incidents involving restraint between February 2017 and September 2018 in her specialist school. Her parents were merely informed that she had ‘had a wobbly day,’ when in fact she had been held on the floor by 4-6 members of staff (CBF & PABBS, 2020; p.7). Whilst this report paints a stark picture of the use of restrictive practices in schools across the UK and Ireland, it also indicates that systems in place to record the use of restrictive interventions in schools may be ‘infrequent and/or inadequate,’ meaning that we can infer from this that the true state of things is far worse. Radio 5 Live recently reported, ‘There is no legal obligation on schools to keep a record of when they use restraint, or even to tell parents about serious instances of restraint involving the use of force’ (2017: 14.41 – 14.50 mins). In addition to the problem of under-reporting, there may also be issues with the way information is processed and analysed to record and react to restrictive practices. Indeed, a recent study in the United States demonstrates that the Department of Education’s systems for collecting and assessing restraint and seclusion data from school districts are ‘largely ineffective or do not exist’ (GAO, 2020). There also remains the problem of accurately defining restrictive practices in order to report them. For example, many schools have designated ‘chill out’ or ‘calming rooms’ that are actively being used to seclude pupils. It is also important to note, as Professor Andrew McDonnell states in his recent book Freedom from Restraint and Seclusion: The Studio 3 Approach (2022; p.19), that ‘secluding individuals will nearly always involve some form of restraint to get the person into the room, and we must be careful not to view this as a separate process.’ In addition, exclusion, whilst not a physical intervention, is often used to restrict pupils with additional needs from equal access to education, particularly in mainstream schools. In research conducted by the Department for Education, they found high numbers of exclusions amongst pupils with additional needs (2019; p.8): ‘78% of permanent exclusions issued during secondary school were to pupils who either had special educational needs, were classified as in need or were eligible for free school meals. 11% of permanent exclusions were to pupils who had all three characteristics.’ The disproportionate level of punitive and restrictive practices on autistic, disabled, disadvantaged, and people of colour speaks to a lack of empathy and understanding for the causes of distressed behaviour. At Studio 3, our main philosophy in training staff and working to support individuals focuses on seeing the person and attempting to understand why they may need to engage in behaviours which are challenging for their supporters. At the core of verbal abuse, property destruction, or aggressive behaviour there often lies stress and trauma, more so for children with additional needs, autism, or Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), who may have been exposed to more traumatic life events and therefore may experience the world as a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) place (Vermeulen, 2012). Failure to understand why individuals behave in the way they do can lead to increased use of restrictive interventions, particularly in mainstream school settings where special education needs are not fully understood by staff and pupils alike. Studies have shown that autistic pupils are often bullied more frequently by their peers, not accepted into or rejected from friendship groups, and understood less by their teachers and classmates than pupils without special education needs (Humphrey & Symes, 2010). The LASER Approach to education adopts the Saturation Model, a whole-school approach to implementing autism awareness in order to meet educational needs of all pupils, not just those with special education needs (Morewood, Humphrey & Symes, 2011: p.64): ‘The word ‘saturation’ is used to reflect the fundamental tenet that, to be effective, inclusive principles and practice need to permeate every aspect of life in school; thus, in order to be ‘autism friendly’, the school needs to be saturated in autism understanding and awareness.’ Understanding the sensory and communication needs of pupils with special education needs or disabilities (SEND) is the beginning of ‘flipping the narrative’ on how behaviour is managed and perceived by schools (Chapple, 2019). One parent, speaking to The Independent, described her daughter Abi’s relentless exposure to restraint, being held 81 times in one year, on one occasion by 8 members of staff (Busby, 2019; paragraph 13): ‘These children are not naughty children. They are children with disabilities. It just seems to be a way of working with children that is just so wrong.’ There needs to be a focus on training school staff in Low Arousal Approaches to aid empathy and compassion, as well as better understand the causes of distressed behaviour. The LASER Approach, developed by Studio 3 in 2019, focuses on supporting young people and learners to achieve their full potential without the use of restrictive interventions. The LASER Approach stands for Low Arousal Supporting Educational Resilience, and is designed to be applied in a wide variety of educational settings by teachers, support workers and families. Here, resilience is not ‘parked within the child,’ and applies more widely to the environment as a whole and the adults who are supporting the young person (Morewood, McDonnell & McDermott, 2021). The LASER Approach applies a practical focus towards eliminating the use of restrictive practices and seclusion by implementing Low Arousal Approaches within a whole-school framework. Combining this with positive practice and excellence in de-escalation allows for a completely different model of working, valuing each individual’s needs and goals without using punitive or consequence-based alternatives. The LASER Approach highlights the need to understand and empathise with young people in order to understand their behaviour, and requires teachers and educational support staff to first examine their own practices and unconscious beliefs about behaviour. The young man in the video above asks only that staff talk to pupils and try to work out what is upsetting them before becoming physical. What we can learn from this young person’s account of witnessing restraint in school is that children want to be listened to and understood, and that using restrictive interventions is preventing positive trusting relationships from developing where this would be possible. Understanding that distressed children may need to engage in behaviours in order to self-regulate is a huge part of the change process. Empathy and compassion are key to Low Arousal Approaches, and the cornerstone by which we can begin to understand and effectively communicate with young people in distress. The young person in the video above speaks about watching the process of restraint in his school, and how it made him feel scared and angry. His parent goes on to ask how he thought these young people being restrained felt, to which he responds that it must have made them feel stressed and panicked, as well as ‘all the bad emotions’: ‘It makes the kids scared when they’re being pushed against their own will.’ In this young person’s account of witnessing restraint, he believes that restraint is at times applied in a punitive manner, describing some of the instances he has personally witnessed as ‘extremely cruel.’ Studies into service users’ perspectives on restrictive practices show that, contrary to the belief that restraint will change or manage behaviours, restraint is viewed by victims as punitive, and often incites further violence and aggression rather than helping a person to calm down (Sequeira & Halstead, 2002). Indeed, the young person in this account goes on to explain that, if he were to be restrained, he would probably panic and try to escape: ‘Our body likes to have control… When someone controls it, we panic and try to get our body back to our will… Punch, hit, smack, move, kick – anything to get them off.’ It is our natural instinct as human beings to fight against being held or pinned down. This is why any restraint procedure or use of seclusion which involves physically placing an individual in a room or area carries a risk of injury. CBF and PABSS (2020: p.23) found that 86.5% of families reported that their child had been physically injured during restrictive interventions, in addition to ‘nightmares, fear of school, trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and deep psychological terror.’ In contrast with this figure, 96.5% of families reported that, to their knowledge, no records of injuries were kept by the school, therefore is it difficult to truly assess the number of injuries sustained. The long-term effects of restraint and seclusion are felt by everyone involved, including staff administering restraint procedures, pupils witnessing restraint and seclusion, and the individual themselves. The Centre for Mental Health (CMH) found that restrictive interventions have a ‘negative impact on mental health, irrespective of previous trauma exposure’ (2020; p.6). This is why it is doubly important to listen to and learn from the experiences of people who have lived experience of restraint, who commonly report its adverse and long-term effects on their mental health (Sequeira & Halstead, 2002: Fish & Hatton, 2016). One case study tells the story of ‘Ben,’ who was seen as a ‘naughty boy’ and regularly restrained in school (CBF & PABBS, 2020: p.16): ‘Restraining and secluding Ben, locking him rooms at school, has done untold damage to Ben and so nearly broken us as a family. Ben has so much to teach the world and contribute but to do that the system needs to change and start to hear the voices of children like Ben. Without substantial education and training of staff to understand behaviour and really listen to parents, sadly there will be many more Bens in the world.’ Listening to the voices of people who have experienced restraint and seclusion is a key part of the change process. Characterising children who are struggling with their environment or to regulate their internal bodily sensations as merely being ‘naughty’ is dismissive of the very real struggles young people with disabilities, autism and other special educational needs face on a daily basis. Listening to young people, seeing the stress and the trauma, and understanding distressed behaviour is only the first step towards eradicating restraint and seclusion from our schools (McDonnell, 2022). Gareth Morewood, Educational Adviser at Studio 3, has spoken at length about using whole-school approaches to implement Low Arousal stress reduction strategies into young people’s daily lives, and work towards improving their overall well-being. The LASER Approach has a strong research base as well as an evidential focus, building on the practical experiences of educators and the voices of young people and their families. Co-production and communication between the individual, their family and the school is a core element of the approach. LASER can be adapted for a wide range of educational settings, including mainstream schools and specialist settings, as well as for young people who are educated at home. The approach provides an academic and practical understanding of key theories related to autism, distressed behaviour and arousal mechanisms, including Low Arousal Approaches, co-production, the Saturation Model (Morewood, Humphrey & Symes, 2011), the PERMA model (Seligman, 2011) and reflective practice. This process of change starts with us, and with recognising that there is another way – a way to include not exclude; to listen not react; to liberate not restrain. This young person adds his account to the plethora of reports by young people about their lived experiences of restraint and seclusion in schools; it is our turn now to act on what they have taught us. For more information on the LASER approach to supporting distressed young people in educational settings, and on the Low Arousal Approach as a whole, visit our website (https://www.studio3.org/education). Written by Rachel McDermott Social Media and Information Coordinator, Studio 3 References Busby, E. (2019). Disabled children ‘constantly’ physically restrained and left with bruises and trauma, parents say. Independent [Online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/educationnews/restrain-disabled-children-parentsspecial-educational-needs-schools-a8803851.html [Accessed 3 March 2023]. Centre for Mental Health. (2020). Trauma, Challenging Behaviour and Restrictive Interventions in Schools. http://newsletters.psy.ox.ac.uk/c/195enJZNuJpZe8QMi8xpjOXH. Challenging Behaviour Foundation (CBF) and Positive & Active Behaviour Support Scotland (PABBS). (2020). Reducing Restrictive Intervention of Children and Young People: Update of Case Study Results [Online]. Available from: https://www.challengingbehaviour.org.uk/news/reducing-restrictive-intervention-of-children-and-young-people/ [Accessed 2 March 2023]. Chapple, E. (2019). Diversity is the key to our survival: The Shoeness of a Shoe. TEDx Talk [Online]. Available from: https://www.ted.com/talks/elly_chapple_diversity_is_the_key_to_our_survival_the_shoeness_of_a_shoe/up-next [Accessed 6 March 2023]. Deveau, R. & McDonnell, A. (2009). As the Last Resort: Reducing the Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions Using Organisational Approaches. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 172-177. Department for Education. (2019). Timpson review of school exclusion: Technical note. Institute of Education [Online] Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/33359/4/Technical_note.pdf [Accessed 6 March 2023]. Fish, R. & Hatton, C. (2017). ‘Gendered Experiences of Physical Restraint on Locked Wards for Women,’ Disability & Society, 32(6): 790–809. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1329711. GAO. (2020). K-12 EDUCATION: Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with its Restraint and Seclusion Data. GAO-20-345. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-345.pdf [Accessed 7 March 2023]. Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2010). Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 77–91. Inclusion Ireland. (2018). Shining a light on seclusion and restraint in schools in Ireland: The experience of children with disabilities and their families. An Inclusion Ireland discussion paper. [Online]. Available from: https://inclusionireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/shining-light-seclusion-and-restraint-schools-ireland.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2023]. McDonnell, A. (2022). Freedom from Restraint and Seclusion: The Studio 3 Approach. Peterborough: Studio 3 Publications. Morewood, G.D., Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2011). Mainstreaming autism: making it work. Good Autism Practice, 12 (2), 62-68. Morewood, G.D., McDonnell, A.A. & McDermott, R.A. (2021). ‘The LASER Approach.’ In New Trends and Promising Directions in Modern Education New Perspectives 2021, Ed. By M. Aydogmus. Meram: Palet Publications. Radio 5 Live (2017) Restraint in special schools. BBC [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08ljdhy [Accessed 3 March 2023]. Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A New Understanding of Happiness and Wellbeing - And How To Achieve Them: The practical guide to using positive psychology to make you happier and healthier. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Sequeira, H. & Halstead, S. (2002). Control and Restraint in the UK: Service User Perspectives. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 4(1): 9–18. doi: 10.1108/14636646200200003. Vermeulen, P. (2012). Autism as Context Blindness. Shawnee, KS: AAPC Publishing.

In this article, Professor Andrew McDonnell comments on the ongoing court case against nine members of staff implicated in the BBC Panorama documentary exposing abusive practices at Whorlton Hall. This week, the court case against the nine members of staff who were implicated in the BBC Panorama undercover documentary aired in 2019 continues. The documentary, Undercover Hospital Abuse Scandal, depicts the mistreatment of vulnerable patients with complex needs in a privately-run NHS-funded hospital setting, which has since been closed down. The nine members of staff identified in the undercover footage obtained by reporter Olivia Davies are this week facing a total of 27 offences for their activities between January and February 2019. I participated in providing an expert opinion on the abusive practices witnessed in this documentary, alongside Professor Glynis Murphy from Kent University’s Tizard Centre, who is a well-known national figure in the area of behaviours of concern and intellectual disabilities. I have also previously commented on the implications of this documentary, and some of the steps that still need to be taken in order to protect vulnerable people in these settings, and prevent hospitalisation as much as possible in an article from 2020 entitled ‘Bring People Home.’ I think it is fair to say that the systematic abuse of vulnerable adults is not a new phenomenon. We have had a veritable litany of enquiries over the last two decades. In a similar vein, I was an expert on the BBC Panorama documentary on Winterbourne View with the late Professor Jim Mansell. I remember him stating that places such as Winterbourne View should be closed. I want to stress that whether places are in the private or public sector is not the core issue for me; it is the model itself that is wrong. As a psychologist, I can find little justification for supporting medicalised models where individuals who are stressed and traumatised are collectively housed with similarly distressed individuals. The model of ‘assessment and treatment’ is fundamentally flawed. It has been my experience, and that of my colleagues at Lives Through Friends, that individualised supports for people who have quite extreme behaviours of concern (such as self-injury, self-injurious behaviours, physical aggression, and suicidal ideation) are more likely to have effective results. In a previous article, entitled ‘From Hospital to My Own Front Door,’ I outlined the significant bureaucracy that is involved in moving individuals from hospital settings to community-based supports. I am a great believer in individualised services where a staff team, properly supported and trained, can become a ‘therapeutic environment’ for individuals, regardless of their labels. So, what is the real learning from Whorlton Hall? To me, it is quite straightforward. We need to radically rethink and commission services that are often part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. A colleague whom I respect in this field recently said to me that once you get put into some kind of detention using the Mental Health Act, the barriers to getting people back to their communities and their lives are systemic. As tax payers, we are spending huge sums of money supporting individuals who are trapped in the system. After Winterbourne View, people spoke about ‘transforming care.’ If we are really to achieve meaningful change, then we have to change how we think about and manage risk. On a personal note, I have been actively involved with my colleagues at Lives Through Friends in designing and developing individual support systems. Do we get things right all of the time? No, but we do try our best to every time. The way we work requires persistence, reflection, determination, and optimism. I am in little doubt that the capability exists to reduce the system’s addiction to secure beds across the four nations. In conclusion, my response to the Whorlton Hall abuse scandal is that we expect a lot from staff who are poorly paid, often highly stressed, and work long hours in the care field. I do believe that work in social care needs to be valued both financially and politically. The issue I have is that the vast majority of staff that I work with under these circumstances categorically do not abuse individuals. We know there are ‘rotten apples’ in the system as multiple undercover documentaries over the last few years have shown, but there are also people who, to my mind, are heroes. These are the individuals who we rely on to support people in distress. They are empathic, compassionate, person-centred, and do not focus on behaviours: they see the trauma that the people they support have experienced, and do their best to support them. Written by Professor Andrew McDonnell Clinical Psychologist and CEO of Studio 3 March 2023

Professor Andrew McDonnell reflects on his work with friend and colleague Bob Rhodes, President and Founder of LivesThroughFriends. Introduction The question of developing individualised support systems for the most vulnerable in society has been a pertinent one for many decades in the UK. The litany of public abuse enquires have a strongly repetitive feel to them (Ely, Borocourt, Pindown, and Winterbourne View to name a few). I have been involved in the development of many individualised support schemes and it is important not to underestimate the significant bureaucracy involved. Transforming care is not a simple, linear process: if we are to truly transform services and get people localised support, this requires ‘thinking out of the box.’ This personal profile of Bob Rhodes describes the career of a man who believes that a box needs not exist at all. In this article, I am going to unashamedly profile my own views of Bob and his life’s work. I must stress that this is a personal view and I hope it will capture the essence of the man. My History with Bob I first met Bob in 1988 in Birmingham. I had applied for a part-time post as a Clinical Psychologist on what was described then as a ‘community mental handicap team’ (CMHT). The other part of the job was an NHS funded clinical researcher post at Birmingham University. The post was unusual and I later found out that Bob had created it to attract a ‘different kind of person.’ In those early years, I experienced Bob Rhodes as the public sector manager whose drive and ambition was what he described in those days as ‘the community.’ As a young psychologist, it was nice to know I was encouraged to ‘have a go’ by senior management. Bob left to close Borocourt Hospital, which had been the subject of the documentary ‘The Silent Minority’ in 1981. It is amazing to think that it took nine years to fully begin the process of decommissioning this hospital. Bob achieved this in a relatively short period of time. Even after closure, Bob was dissatisfied with the lack of individualisation, and ultimately, he formed Thames and Chiltern Trust (TACT), which was a community interest company to support individuals. Even when Bob retired from TACT, he still could not walk away from championing better lives for people. Ultimately, he formed an advocacy organisation called LivesThroughFriends. Even though technically retired, Bob is still the President of the LivesThroughFriends organisation, which has a national and international focus on developing ‘meaningful lives’ for people with complex needs. Bob has always been involved in a variety of roles, ranging from social work to health and social care management. Prior to my involvement with Bob, he had already had an evolutionary journey into senior management. Bob originally trained as a teacher and youth worker. Bob even took the time to qualify in mental health nursing, which he did not particularly like, and went back to youth work and taught within the University of Warwick. Bob evolved his views and thinking in a number of roles – for example, he ran a young offenders programme in Coventry in the 1980s. He was also head hunted to set up early CAMHS services in the Midlands (previously, a young person may have had a psychiatrist, psychologists, and/or social workers, but they probably did not work together). There were a number of other jobs that led to Bob becoming very rapidly a senior manager in services. Throughout his career, he has developed a reputation as a problem solver from a managerial perspective. Advocacy and Networking Bob has been an advocate for human rights-based approaches in all the years that I have known him. One of his clear roles is that of an advocate and a campaigner. Evidence of his campaigning can also be found in his years of being politically active. There are a number of individuals that Bob has actively campaigned to helped to transform their lives. His style of advocacy involves self-directed approaches to community support; quite often he has been the go-between in developing systems of support that are unashamedly person-centred and rights based in their values. Bob also has extensive commitments to networking and supporting organisations all over the world. He has been involved with PLAN Canada who have helped to develop self-governing supports with notable individuals such as Al Etmanski, who have been greatly influential. Bob has sought to make connections on a global basis to help individuals share ideas. In the UK, his work with the Citizen Network (formerly Centre for Welfare Reform) amongst others demonstrates his ability to find elements that work and attempt to draw them together for individuals. Bob is a great lover of travelling and often gets involved in campaigning overseas, sometimes with surprising results. He helped to create TACT Hellas in Greece as a response to meeting families who needed advice and support to develop support systems for their sons and daughters. I have personally delivered training with Bob to a number of these organisations over the years. Bob’s globetrotting has brought him to places as far afield as Pakistan and Russia. In 2008, I attended a conference with Bob in Brussels, which focused on human rights-based approaches to supporting people across the European Union. Bob seemed to personally know many of the delegates. Bob is able to change how people think about issues due to his ability to create solutions that require alternative routes. By definition, approaches such as these can often make people feel slightly uncomfortable. He is a passionate believer, as I am myself, that true change starts with ourselves, and this means questioning all of our strategies. One of his special talents is to create alternative styles of thinking that are still solution focused. I recall being introduced to a group of individuals called ‘Go MAD Thinking’ who are practitioners who get people to challenge their own thinking styles and the negative risk-taking cultures that organisations can often develop. Focusing on organisational change requires people to take on the perspectives of others. Bob is interested in individuals who help to change cultures by being ‘critical friends.’ Leadership Style Bob has a tendency to formulate and think systemically. Placement failures that are blamed on the person not being ready for change or on staff, he sees as failures at a systems level, whereby services are not designed for individuals. Ideally it is desirable that people can form a consensus around an individual, and Bob and his colleagues attempt to do this as much as possible. When difficult decisions need to be made, Bob has an uncanny knack of knowing when to do this. Dwight D. Eisenhower, noted for being both a military and civilian leader, is attributed with the quotation, ‘Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because they want to do it.’ Encouraging people to support difficult decisions is an essential ingredient in the LivesThroughFriends approach. Being a Critical Friend Being a critical friend requires a strategic approach. Bob believes we need people with a breadth of life and professional experiences, and to have the ‘right people in the room’ in order to get the job done. Bob has never seen himself as the ‘full ticket,’ saying, ‘My job has been about pulling together a range of competencies and people.’ When Bob sets up a service for an individual, he insists that LTF and not the commissioners write the contract. LTF are often asked to work with people who are labelled most ‘challenging;’ the irony is that once Bob has applied his principles they end up with ‘better lives’ than those who were considered ‘easier to manage.’ As Bob says, this is because the service they receive is individualised and designed to meet their needs, whereas others have landed in standard supported living services or institutions. The quality and benefits of bespoke services has been officially recognised by local commissioning groups in many instances. Bob often describes himself as an ‘anarchist,’ but more appropriately I would describe him as a ‘positive disruptor.’ By this I mean that he sees his role as encouraging change through discourse, demonstration, and challenging ‘the system.’ Community Involvement Bob believes in and role models being active in local communities. When he lived in the Forest of Dean, Bob got involved with a variety of local issues. Bob became Chair of Local Issues with Forest Voluntary Action Forum (FVAF), which aims to build stronger communities by facilitating representation and by recruiting and training volunteers. He points out that when people are asked, ‘What matters most to you?’ their response is invariably along the lines of love, relationships, choice, being a member of a community, participation, and having a place to call home. Bob is an advocate for individuals whose needs are often otherwise overlooked, and strongly believes that communities not services can provide the keys to a ‘Good Life.’ Conclusion In many ways, Bob could be described as a true maverick or even ‘one of a kind.’ His compassion for individuals and genuine passion for getting people ‘better lives’ rather than simply setting up services has been his trademark. The most traumatised and complex individuals can live fulfilling lives if we can all be encouraged to think out of the box. I was recently involved with Bob in helping a person to move from a hospital setting to their own front door. This person was one of the original individuals from the Winterbourne View documentary. This and other work with Bob has demonstrated to me that if commissioners of services and people supporting an individual can all agree to a process that places the person at the centre of supports, then much can be achieved. Working with Bob demonstrates a determination and resilience to make a difference. Bob has assisted a number of individuals to achieve their potential (whatever they decide that potential to be). It is not unusual for Bob to view and talk of these individuals as friends. To this end, the name LivesThroughFriends is appropriate. The LTF organisation has recently grown to include a fantastically talented network of individuals who champion the approach. Although I lead the Studio 3 organisation in our work in the UK and overseas, I am now also a Director of LTF as I genuinely believe that this organisation is making a real difference. The more people with intellectual disabilities, autism, and other labels we can help to leave hospital settings and live fulfilling lives in the community, the better. Finally, on a personal note, both as a friend and colleague Bob is a fantastic role model. In my own small way, my organisation and myself have championed the Low Arousal Approach to behaviour management. This philosophy has gathered a great deal of momentum, both within the UK and other countries, and has helped a lot of people. Bob has been one of the individuals who has helped both directly and indirectly with the journey of this approach. I always tell people that Bob gave me my first job: in reality, he gave me the freedom and scope to develop my own ideas, and that in essence is one of his major gifts - he encourages people to think beyond what is possible. I think the collaboration between LTF and Studio 3 has demonstrated for me that so much can be achieved when there is a shared goal to move people from hospitals to community settings. His book ‘Much More to Lives Than Services’ really captures his approach to life and supporting individuals, and I would encourage anyone working in the care sector to read it. Written by Professor Andrew McDonnell, Clinical Psychologist & CEO, Studio 3 Assisted by Stephanie Bews-Pugh, Assistant Psychologist, Studio 3

Professor Andrew McDonnell reviews recent publication by Studio 3 associate Peter Vermeulen, Autism and the Predictive Brain: Absolute Thinking in a Relative World (2022). Peter Vermeulen is a world-renowned expert in understanding the thinking processes that help people to develop insights into autism. He has written a vast array of books on the topic, which focus on attempting to understand how people think and feel by trying to see the world from their perspective. Peter’s work has been instrumental in understanding the autistic brain, and has informed practice across the globe. In his book ‘Autism as Context Blindness’ (2012), Peter noted that autistic individuals were often trying to make sense of a world that appeared to them to be ‘chaotic and confusing.’ In these situations, there is a strong desire for individuals to seek out predictability and ‘an oasis of calm.’ Whilst these behaviours have been largely misunderstood by society, Peter’s work has shed light on the neurological mechanisms underpinning the stress and sensory overload often experienced by autistic people on a day-to-day basis. As a practitioner, his interests are also reflected in practical approaches to supporting individuals in light of what we know about the predictive brain and context blindness. This book, ‘Autism and the Predictive Brain: Absolute Thinking in a Relative World,’ uses established, innovative research about the human brain and relates it to real-world experiences. As Peter states, the brain is a not a passive recipient of information, but an active processor as well: ‘Although we feel that our brain is an organ that reacts to what happens in the outside world, that is not the case. In reality, the brain predicts what it thinks is going to happen in the world, so that we can better react to events when they occur.’ Understanding the workings of the predictive brain is, I believe, a crucial factor in empathising with the ‘autistic experience,’ and enabling the best possible support and interventions for individuals struggling in a world that is often a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) place. In this book, Peter applies his wealth of knowledge to focus on areas that range from navigating the social landscape to providing insights into sensory issues. If you are a person who wants to learn more about neurological processing and how it relates to autism and the autistic experience, this book will undoubtedly assist you in explaining why people sometimes see the world differently. My colleague Damian Milton often refers to a ‘double empathy’ problem, whereby people sometimes struggle to empathise with the autistic experience of the world (Milton, 2012). Peter Vermeulen’s work encourages empathic understanding within a logical, scientific framework, and has aided understanding and influenced practice for individuals throughout my organisation and across the globe. The book is intended for a broad audience of individuals, and I would highly recommend it to anyone whose is interested in the neurological processes of the autistic brain: ‘Most people with autism, as well as the parents of autistic children, teachers, therapists, helpers, carers and autism-coaches, have never even heard of the theory of the predictive mind and know nothing about what it can mean for our understanding of autism. It is for these people that this book is intended.’ In summary, I whole heartedly recommend this book as it provides another step towards demystifying autism, and helping us as practitioners, family members, and friends to better support the autistic community to thrive. Written by Professor Andrew McDonnell Clinical Psychologist & CEO, Studio 3 Peter's book is available to buy now: https://www.routledge.com/Autism-and-The-Predictive-Brain-Absolute-Thinking-in-a-Relative-World/Vermeulen/p/book/9781032358970 References Milton, D. E. (2012). On the Ontological Status of Autism: The ‘Double Empathy Problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883-887. Vermeulen, P. (2022). Autism and The Predictive Brain: Absolute Thinking in a Relative World. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis. Vermeulen, P. (2012). Autism as Context Blindness. Shawnee, KS: AAPC Publishing.