Research School Network: SWERL in Suffolk: when implementation meets wellbeing (Supporting Wellbeing, Emotional Resilience and Learning)

It all started on a hot July day (remember those stifling summer temperatures?!)


An email came in from Dr Amelia Roberts, Deputy Director, UCL Centre for Inclusive Education outlining their SWERL
(Supporting wellbeing and emotional resilience in learning*) knowledge exchange programme.
^{_{(*For further details see appendix at the end of this blog.)}}

Having linked with Rob Webster, from the same institution/​department, for our Maximising the Impact of TAs programme and EEF trial, I knew it would be high quality and rooted in evidence.

I was interested so responded. Initial conversations with Amelia were very positive and set the scene for further discussions.

Through further phone calls, emails and face-to-face meetings, we set in motion a process to bring SWERL to Suffolk.

In order to capitalise on our work as Research School, I used the opportunity to approach the whole process, utilising the framework provided by the EEF recommendations for effective implementation.

Having seen the successful launch of the project in the final week of February, it seemed an ideal opportunity to chart how the framework has influenced our implementation so far. To date it has looked like this:

With these two foundations in place, following work over the summer and early autumn term, we were able to really move on and take our thinking forward. As we did this, we responded to a selection of essential questions framed within the four subsequent areas of recommendations which proved to be a valuable steer.

A selection are outlined below in the following four stages of Explore, Develop, Deliverand Sustain.

From an early stage, the following active ingredients were key:

• Frameworks for use within school improvement are grounded in evidence
• Well designed, rigorous knowledge exchange programmes bring schools the opportunity to learn from research/​researchers as well as contributing back in to the evidence base
• Expert instruction and follow on support skills and supplements local leadership capacity
• Professional development activity models DfE Standards for Professional Development
• Collaboration between schools, MATs and TSAs enhance the potential for shared and complimentary professional development
• Approaches to wellbeing are viewed at a variety of scales and in relation to groups (student and staff)

So, where are we now?

Seven months on from the initial email, headline milestones we have achieved include:

• Shaping a workable model for the launch and implementation of SWERL in our wider locality
• Securing funding to significantly reduce the cost to schools
• Designing the schedule for implementation
• Recruiting 15 schools to the locality programme cohort
• Creating a new collaboration encompassing a number of MATs and different teaching school alliance schools
• Establishing a core implementation team, composing: experts, local trainee facilitators and in-school leads
• Launching the programme
• Establishing next steps with dedicated in-school follow on support for in-school leads

What we’ve learnt along the way

• The EEF recommendations for effective implementation have been invaluable through this process and continue to provide a framework for ongoing planning, evaluation and reflection
• Taking an evidence informed approach to foster such a collaborative project has provided interest and clear reference points in shaping the vision from the outset
• Time committed to establishing firm foundations from the outset has been time very well spent
• Leaders in schools value reference to evidence-informed frameworks such as those within the EEF Guidance Report ​‘Putting Evidence to Work: a school’s guide to implementation’ and underpinning the SWERL process and domains
• The expertise brought to the collaboration by the UCL team of Dr Amelia Roberts, Dr Tim O’Brien and Dr Dennis Guiney has generated a real passion and intent amongst the core and wider in-school teams, inspiring engagement from initial contacts to launch
  
  As we progress through the project we’ll share further reflections, insights and findings as they emerge.
  
  
  Andy Samways

Appendix: Further information on the SWERL Programme

Student wellbeing and emotional resilience in learning (SWERL): Context and introduction

Since the Children and Families Act (2014), mental health has been specifically mentioned as an area of potential special educational need as part of the category: social, emotional and mental health needs (SEMH). The first Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (2014) deriving from this legislation outlines other cornerstone principles including, for example, ​‘The Graduated Response to Need’. The graduated response to need outlines an approach that highly prizes excellent universal practice because there is often a window of opportunity for vulnerable children when timely support and high expectations can enable a happy and successful school career. This is particularly true for pupils with mental health difficulties because the influence of people and school experiences can significantly alter the potential trajectory of an individual’s mental health.

This is why SWERL encourages schools to look across the whole school system as a way of reducing risk and constructing an environment conducive to staff and pupil mental wellbeing.

The seven domains include:

1. Supported and knowledgeable staff
2. Graduated Response to Need: role of the teacher
3. Enabling Environment
4. Building Relationships

SWERL: Aims and Objectives 

SWERL is a knowledge exchange (KE) programme that seeks to support practice in schools to improve outcomes for students with SEMH. At its core, is the collaborative relationship that exists between practitioners in school and university researchers to seek to improve our collective understanding of how pupils with SEMH can thrive in school. As a knowledge exchange programme, SWERL places considerable emphasis on the generation of evidence from practice. The programme promotes evidence informed practice in schools and the structure of the programme itself is based on what is currently understood as the best way to support professional learning and development in schools. 

Our understanding of the concept continues to evolve, but the approach taken by SWERL has been influenced by two key publications^[1]&[2]and is summarised below. Effective KE is based on:

• A consensus between decision makers/​practitioners and researchers about what sort of evidence is needed for the schools 
• A bi-directional exchange of knowledge between practitioners and researchers 
• An understanding that more intense and long term relationships between practitioners and researchers are more likely to lead to research being used
• An understanding that the accumulated knowledge of a field rather than outputs of a single study can have more influence.
  

SWERL: the programme itself

Careful consideration has been given to how the programme is structured and the content of each element (eg. information provision, on-boarding, launch, associated training, in-school facilitator support, sharing of process and findings). The structure is based on lessons learned from a previous pilot, groups run in the second year and what we currently know about more effective models of continuing professional development (CPD). The programme engages schools in a collaborative programme over at least six months through access to research findings, a comprehensive audit tool and regular support from facilitators with research and school practitioner backgrounds. Participants utilise the evidence informed framework within their school setting on an element of practice amenable to change. Through supported exploration of need, planning of next steps and management of the change process schools are able to engage in a highly bespoke piece of focused school improvement activity. A key element of the opportunity is the sharing (with other schools) of their findings and evaluations at spaced milestones.

^[1]_{Shucksmith, M. 2016. ​“InterAction How can academics and the third sector work together to influence policy and practice.” Dunfermline: CarnegieUK Trust.}

^[2] _{Cooper, Amanda. 2010. ​“Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education.” Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Montreal.}