Search

School psychology has heavily relied on quantitative methodology to create and sustain our knowledge of best practices regarding academic, behavioral, and mental health outcomes for students. Nevertheless, underlying assumptions of the neutrality of quantitative data have obfuscated how school psychology research has perpetuated oppressive ideologies and practices, which directly harm students from marginalized identities. This paper demonstrates the need for employing a critical lens when engaging in and consuming school psychology research that utilizes quantitative methods. One such framework is QuantCrit, developed in the United Kingdom, which intentionally integrates Critical Race Theory tenets into the development, analysis, and interpretation of quantitative data. We explore specific examples of the insidious ways that 'presumed neutral' quantitative approaches have led to the perpetuation of oppressive practices in the following key areas of school psychology research: (a) discipline disproportionality, (b) special education disproportionality, and (c) school accountability metrics. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for both utilizing and publishing quantitative research that moves school psychologists towards more equitable practices for children and families across the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are conflicting theories about the best ways to support behaviour in schools. This paper captures the perspectives of UK primary school staff regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different behaviour support approaches, in addition to exploring the facilitators and barriers to adopting relational-based approaches. Virtual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 school staff across three mainstream primary schools. A reflexive thematic analysis identified nine themes. Participants commented on the approaches' flexibility, familiarity, positive long-term behaviour change and emotional wellbeing and relationships. Key facilitators to adopting relational-based approaches included: whole-school training and understanding; quality and type of training; and working together and feeling supported. Key barriers included: changing perspectives; ease of implementation and familiarity; scarcity of resources; and persevering in the face of difficulties. Themes are discussed in light of psychological research and implications for educational practitioners and future research are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how multi‐agency response teams communicate and coordinate in different phases of a simulated terrorist incident. Procedural guidelines state that responders should coordinate their response to a major emergency across two phases: 'response' (when the incident is ongoing) and 'recovery' (when the threat has subsided, but the legacy of the incident is ongoing). However, no research has examined whether these phases map to the behaviours of responders in situ. To address this, we used measures of communication and coordination to examine how behaviours evolved during a simulated terrorist incident in the United Kingdom. We grounded our approach within the theoretical literature on multi‐team systems. It was found that the current response/recovery classification does not fit the nuanced context of an emergency. Instead, a three‐phase structure of 'response/resolve/recovery' is more reflective of behaviour. It was also found that coordination between agencies improved when communication networks became less centralized. This suggests that collaborative working in multi‐team systems may be improved by adopting decentralized communication networks. Practitioner points: To better prepare responders for emergencies, we recommend a three‐phase structure of 'response/resolve/recovery' is introduced in place of the current guidelines that outline a two‐phase structure of response and recovery.A three‐phase structure more accurately describes the behaviours of responders during emergencies and accounts for the shift in urgency between an ongoing incident (response) and shortly afterwards when the immediate threat has subsided (resolve).Given the cognitive load on focal agencies, decentralized communication structures should be introduced in the early phases of an emergency to increase collaborative decision‐making across inter‐agency partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]