Evidence-based practice in relation to post-adoption support in educational settings

Abstract

This article presents a critical review of research into post-adoption support in educational settings using a rigorous systematic methodology. This is an important topic as effective support services at every stage can be transformative to adopted children’s school experiences and achievements. Relevant studies were found to be limited in number and methodological quality. Aspects of effective support identified across 11 studies were classified under four themes: strategies for support; shared understanding; communication; and monitoring. These themes can inform collaborative planning to meet adoptive children’s needs and could be introduced to school staff and adoptive parents through joint training. We propose that co-ordinated interdisciplinary research that focuses on the views of children and young people is required to meet the requirements of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and make effective use of funding provided at both organisational and school levels.

Keywords

Adopted children post-adoption support school education intervention

Introduction

Adopted children make up one of the most vulnerable groups in society (Langton and Boy, 2017). Children who have been placed for adoption in the UK within the last 30 years are likely to have experienced abuse, neglect or trauma (NICE, 2015) and have an increased risk of additional or special educational needs and compromised educational, social, emotional and health outcomes (Department for Education, 2016a). In the USA, 54% of adopted children, compared to 23% of non-adopted peers, are diagnosed with a psychological or medical condition that affects their ability to learn, get on with others or take part in physical activities (Zill and Bradford Wilcox, 2018). In the UK, nearly half of adopted children have a recognised special educational need or disability (White, 2017), compared to 14.6% of all pupils (Department for Education, 2018).

The social, emotional and mental health needs of adopted children

The results of a 2018 survey for Adoption UK which studied almost 2000 adopted children show that 73% of them agree with the statement ‘other children seem to enjoy school more than me’, 79% feel routinely ‘confused and worried at school’ and 75% of those at secondary school do not feel their teachers understand how to support them. Almost 70% of adoptive parents feel that their child’s progress in learning is affected by problems with their emotional well-being in school (White, 2018).

Until recently, research, legislation and service provision have identified the needs and difficulties of looked after rather than adopted children (Langton and Boy, 2017). While there are assumed to be some similarities between these two groups due to the effects of disrupted early care, an assumed equivalence of needs between them could be misleading. Recent legislation acknowledges this situation and focuses on adopted children as a distinct group; local authorities and educational settings now have a statutory duty to specifically meet the needs of children adopted from care (Children and Social Work Act, 2017).

Analysis of data from a longitudinal study of young people in England found that teenage adopted young people report that they experience the highest rates of bullying: 75% of adopted children compared to 53% of looked after children and 40% of the general population (Wijedasa and Selwyn, 2011). Missing school can expose young people to all kinds of risks and at the age of 13‒14, a third of adopted children reported that they had missed at least one lesson in the preceding year, a significantly higher proportion than that disclosed by looked after children or the general population (Wijedasa and Selwyn, 2011). This finding aligns with the fact that one-third of adoptive parents have experienced their child’s refusal to go to school, running away from school or truanting (White, 2018).

Given these findings, it is not surprising that the educational progress of adopted children is often held back. In the USA, compared to their non-adopted peers, those in kindergarten and first grade display above average levels of problem behaviour and below average levels of positive learning attitudes (Zill, 2015); later on, they are more than four times as likely to have to repeat a grade or have their parents contacted for behavioural problems, and three times more likely to be suspended from school (Zill and Bradford Wilcox, 2018). The situation is similar in the UK with adopted children 20 times more likely than their peers to be permanently excluded from school (White, 2017), an experience almost certain to have an adverse impact on their educational attainment and life chances (White 2018).

The needs of adopted children: educational attainment

Educational attainment can be viewed as a powerful predictor of later life experiences (Wijedasa and Selwyn, 2011) so the finding that the attainment of adopted children in England is significantly lower than that of their peers ‒ and that the gap widens as they get older (Department for Education, 2016b) ‒ is worrying, even though they appear to do better educationally than those who are looked after. Data from Wijedasa and Selwyn’s (2011) longitudinal study in England showed that adopted children and those in the general population are more likely than looked after children to achieve 5 A* to C grades at GCSE. In addition, more recent evidence collated by the UK’s Department for Education found that in 2016, 30% of previously looked after (including adopted) children achieved the expected standard at the end of primary school, compared to 25% of looked after children and 54% of the general population; furthermore, 26% of previously looked after (including adopted) children, 14% of looked after children and 53% of all children achieved five good GCSE grades, including English and maths.

Around the age of 18‒19, however, these advantages appear to dissipate with only 14% of adopted children reported to be enrolled in a programme of university study, compared to 33% of the general population and 16% of looked after young people (Wijedasa and Selwyn, 2011). The fact that the number of adopted children at university is slightly lower than it is for those in care, despite their better grades, suggests that more support is required to encourage adopted children to continue participating in education.

Post-adoption support

Post-adoption support can mean different things to different children and families, and varies depending on the child’s age and developmental stage (Pennington, 2012). It can include services to enable groups of adopted children and parents to come together; it can offer therapeutic support, counselling, information and advice, enable mediation (e.g. between an adoptive child and adoptive parents when a placement is at risk of disruption) and provide financial and practical support (e.g. respite care); it can also support families on working in partnership with schools and other agencies, or train professionals and parents. Without appropriate, timely and effective support, adoptive families are put under increased strain that can have long-term effects, including health and educational problems and adoption breakdown (Selwyn, Wijedesa and Meakings, 2014).

The current picture

A child’s journey in education in the UK typically involves several educational settings, starting at nursery or pre-school, then primary and after that, secondary school, followed by one or more post-16 options, including college, supported apprenticeships and university. Children in the UK are adopted at an average age of three years and five months (Department for Education, 2016a) and support has traditionally been prioritised for three years after the adoption order (Stother, 2017). Post-adoption support is more prevalent when children are attending some form of early years or primary education, even though it is recognised there is a peak of difficulty for adoptive children in the teenage years and at times of transition (Selwyn, Wijedesa and Meakings, 2014).

In 2016, the UK Government set the aspiration that by 2020 (Department for Education, 2016b: 7):

Every adoptive family has access to an ongoing package of appropriate support with a right to a high quality, specialist assessment of need. This support is delivered from day one and continues throughout childhood, whenever it is required. Adoptive families have a supportive relationship with their local agency and know they can turn to them for additional support at any time, without judgment.

Effective post-adoption support across educational settings at all stages of a child’s educational journey can contribute towards this aim. Local authority adoption social work teams, Voluntary Adoption Agencies (VAAs) and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) are among the professional groups currently providing post-adoption support to children, families and professionals (Department for Education, 2016b). Services are delivered in community and therapeutic settings and family homes and can be accessed over the telephone, using social media or the internet (Duquette, et al., 2012). The systems for educational and therapeutic support vary across authorities and can be difficult to access and understand (Gore Langton, 2016); many adopted children have complex and overlapping needs that do not easily fit the tight criteria demanded by agencies.

Adoption services are undergoing significant changes, led by the introduction and embedding of Regional Adoption Authorities (RAAs) that promise an improved method of designing and delivering support services to meet local need (Department for Education, 2016a). The role of teachers and schools in helping adopted children emotionally, socially and educationally is supported through funding streams such as the Pupil Premium Plus for adopted children (Department for Education, 2014a) and Pupil Deprivation Grant (Welsh Government, 2012). Local authority virtual schools and school designated teachers should work together to provide timely, responsive and effective post-adoption support informed by evidence-based practice (NICE, 2015).

Changes in legislation, the restructuring of services and new models of delivery provide an opportunity to rethink provision and improve outcomes for adopted children. Educational settings are under external scrutiny and pressure through bodies such as Ofsted, which regulate school effectiveness and track pupils’ learning progress. The lack of statutory frameworks for adopted children means that schools have been missing clear guidance on how to systematically identify, monitor and meet the needs of such children. Adopted children, as service users, should participate in the planning of post-adoption services (Department for Education, 2016b; NICE, 2015); this is mandated through children’s rights legislation and is important in practical terms.

Against this background, this systematic literature review seeks to answer the following research question: What is the international evidence for effective post-adoption support and interventions within educational settings?

Method

A systematic search of the literature was conducted following the PRISMA process (Moher, et al., 2009), using the following databases: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA); Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC); Psych Info; and Google Scholar. Literature searches were completed between August 2017 and December 2017 using the following search terms: ‘adopted children’; ‘adoptive children’; ‘child adopted’; ‘adopted child’; ‘education’; ‘school’; ‘post-adoption support’; ‘support’; ‘intervention’; and ‘programme’. Searches were conducted using single and combined terms. Hand searches of Adoption & Fostering and reference harvesting from relevant papers were also carried out.

Due to a lack of relevant peer-reviewed studies which focused on evidence for effective post-adoption support and interventions for adopted children within educational settings, the systematic search was broadened to include the Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS); experts in the field also were consulted to identify relevant unpublished/grey area research. It was recognised that these sources were likely to have lower levels of peer review than those obtained through the academic journal publication process, but as rigorous screening for methodological quality was applied to all selected papers, this was considered acceptable.

Using this combination of search strategies, 650 papers were originally sourced; 569 were excluded after removing duplicates and screening titles. Eighty-one records were screened by reading the abstracts against the following inclusion criteria: published in English between 1997 and 2017 (preliminary scoping indicated that a 20-year search period was sufficiently inclusive as most relevant research has been published since 2010); includes adopted children; and focuses on education/schools.

At this point, 46 papers were excluded, leaving 35 full-text papers to be assessed for eligibility using the above criteria, plus the stipulation that it includes primary research data. At this stage, 23 papers were excluded, so 11 remained for inclusion in the final synthesis.

Data classification

The 11 papers were read in full and reviewed using research report quality criteria. Each was read at least twice and four were read and independently coded by each author prior to a calibration meeting that focused on non-agreed checklist criteria. At this meeting, moderation discussions took place for each jointly read paper to reach a consensus on its quality and to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the quality criteria. This process showed a high level of post-discussion agreement (average inter-coder agreement of 97%).

The qualitative studies were assessed using the Review Framework for Qualitative Evaluation/Investigation Research, which was adapted from a systematic review of the effectiveness of Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) by Bond and colleagues (2013) and has been extensively used in subsequent systematic literature reviews (e.g. Ezzamel and Bond, 2016; Law and Woods, 2018; Snape and Atkinson, 2016; Tyrell and Woods, 2018). This framework identifies 12 criteria (appropriateness of research design, clear sampling rationale, well-executed data collection, analysis close to the data, evidence of explicit reflexivity, comprehensiveness of documentation, negative case analysis, clarity and comprehensiveness of reporting, evidence of researcher-participant negotiation of meanings, emergent theory related to the problem, transferable conclusions and evidence of attention to ethical issues) and gives each paper a score of between 0 and 14 (some criteria carrying two points). Scores were converted into percentages to allow comparison.

The two mixed-method studies were assessed using the Review Framework for Qualitative Evaluation/Investigation Research and a Review Framework for Quantitative Evaluation Research adapted from Bond and colleagues’ (2013) review. The Quantitative Evaluation framework identified seven criteria: use of a randomised group design; focus on a specific, well-defined disorder or problem; comparison; use of manuals/protocol/training; fidelity checking/supervision; sample large enough to detect effect; and use of outcome measure(s) that have demonstrated good reliability and validity. Each paper achieved a score of between 0 and 8. Scores were converted to percentages and they were credited the score from the framework on which the highest score was achieved (referred to as Weight of Evidence A in Table 1). Three studies scored 25% or less and were deemed to be of low quality, three scored 26% to 65% and were defined as being of medium quality, while five scored 66% or over and received a high-quality judgment.

Table1.

Study characteristics.

Author/ Year	Country	Population	Age range of children	Sample	Design	Data Analysis	Summary and findings	W of E	W of E	Total
								*****	B	W of E
								A
Barratt, 2012	UK	AC *	NS****	one multi-agency team of professionals	Account Methodology (professional experience)	Account Methodology (professional experience)	Description of difficulties for AC in the education system. Methods of involving CAMHS practitioners in multi-agency support positively evaluated.	Low	Low	Low
Barratt, 2012	UK	AC *	NS****	one multi-agency team of professionals	Account Methodology (professional experience)	Account Methodology (professional experience)		8%	4	Low
Duquette, et al., 2011	Canada	AC	Adolescents and young adults	36 adoptive parents of young people with FASD**	Survey by questionnaire	Thematic Analysis	Examination of educational advocacy experiences of adoptive parents and young adults. Internet recognised as an essential tool to seek advice and support.	High	Medium	Medium High
Duquette, et al., 2011	Canada	AC	Adolescents and young adults	36 adoptive parents of young people with FASD**	Survey by questionnaire	Thematic Analysis		73%	5	Medium High
Gilling, 2014	UK	AC	Aged 12	one adopted child	Account Methodology (parent perspective)	Account Methodology (parent perspective)	Description of ignored needs and misunderstandings in a boy’s educational journey. Suggestions for improved educational practices.	Medium	Medium	Medium
Gilling, 2014	UK	AC	Aged 12	one adopted child	Account Methodology (parent perspective)	Account Methodology (parent perspective)		28%	5	Medium
Lyons, 2016	UK	AC	NS	10 adoptive parents	Action Research	Thematic Analysis	Participatory action research facilitates knowledge development of adoptive parents’ perceptions of the enabling factors and barriers in communicating with school staff. Generation of a resource which focuses on practical structures and emotional support.	High	Medium	Medium High
Lyons, 2016	UK	AC	NS	10 adoptive parents	Action Research	Thematic Analysis		75%	5	Medium High
Nowak- Fabrykowski, 2015	USA	Fostered and AC	Aged 5‒8	22 teachers	Survey by questionnaire	Content Analysis	Exploration of early childhood teachers’ perceptions of teaching AC. Teachers give advice on dispositions and academic strategies that promote nurturing development.	Medium	Low	Low Medium
Nowak- Fabrykowski, 2015	USA	Fostered and AC	Aged 5‒8	22 teachers	Survey by questionnaire	Content Analysis		28%	4	Low Medium
Nowak- Fabrykowski, et al., 2009	USA	Fostered and AC	NS	23 foster carers	Survey by questionnaire	Thematic analysis	Foster parents give advice on the adoption of foster children; 65% of foster parents reported school was helpful.	Low	Low	Low
Nowak- Fabrykowski, et al., 2009	USA	Fostered and AC	NS	23 foster carers	Survey by questionnaire	Thematic analysis		23%	4	Low
Rose, et al., 2016	UK	Children with unmet attachment needs who have experienced trauma/ neglect	NS	75 members of school staff and 95 sets of pupil data	Survey	Content analysis	Impact evaluation of the ‘Attachment Aware Schools’ project. Findings include a significant improvement in academic attainment, a significant decrease in exclusions and sanctions and a reduction in the symptoms of hyperactivity.	Low	High	Medium
Rose, et al., 2016	UK		NS	75 members of school staff and 95 sets of pupil data	Survey	Content analysis		20%	7	Medium
Soharabi-Shiraz, 2014	UK	AC	NS	6 parents 8 members of adoption support group including school staff	Mixed methods	Thematic analysis	Creation of a training programme to be delivered to school staff and adoptive parents was successful in addressing the needs of participants and raising awareness of attachment issues. Unique contribution of the EP identified.	High	Medium	Medium High
Soharabi-Shiraz, 2014	UK	AC	NS		Mixed methods	Thematic analysis		66%	5	Medium High
Stewart, 2017	UK	AC	NS	84 teachers 11 adoptive parents	Semi- structured interviews	Thematic analysis	Examines the views of professionals towards adoptive families, pre- and post-training intervention. Findings support the effectiveness of a brief, standardised intervention.	High	High	High
Stewart, 2017	UK	AC	NS	84 teachers 11 adoptive parents	Semi- structured interviews	Thematic analysis		76%	6	High
Syne, et al., 2012	UK	AC	Aged 4‒11	one EP*** team	Survey by questionnaire	Basic quantitative analysis	Description of the role of EPs in supporting transitions for AC and their families. Findings demonstrate that multi-agency, solution focused collaborations have a positive impact on stability.	Medium	Medium	Medium
Syne, et al., 2012	UK	AC	Aged 4‒11	one EP*** team	Survey by questionnaire	Basic quantitative analysis		32%	5	Medium
Taymans, et al., 2008	USA	AC	NS	146 professionals (trainee teachers/ counsellors)	Quasi- experimental survey design	ANCOVA and thematic analysis	Views of professionals towards adoptive families pre- and post- educational intervention support the effectiveness of a brief standardised intervention.	High	High	High
Taymans, et al., 2008	USA	AC	NS	146 professionals (trainee teachers/ counsellors)	Quasi- experimental survey design	ANCOVA and thematic analysis		86%	7	High

*AC: Adopted Children **FASD: Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder ***EP: Educational Psychologist ****NS: Not specified *****W of E: Weight of Evidence.

Studies were also systematically scored using key criteria which assess the methodological appropriateness of the study to the research question. Each study was given a score of one or two for four key criteria: data respondent (Child or Young Person 2, Parent or Professional 1); sample size (N>30 2, N<30 1); analysis of data (appropriately powered statistical analysis 2, descriptive analysis 1); and mode of support (specific intervention 2, approach 1). Scores are referred to as ‘Weight of Evidence B’ in Table 1 (see Gough, 2007). A score of four was achieved by three papers and deemed to be ‘low’; five papers had a score of five which was classified as ‘medium’ and the remaining three received a score of six or seven and were identified as ‘high’. Judgments on methodological quality were then combined with those on methodological appropriateness to produce a ‘Total Weight of Evidence’ for each paper and it was this that provided the basis for a broadly configurative synthesis (Gough, Thomas and Oliver, 2012).

Findings

Methodological quality

The methodological quality of the 11 studies scrutinised varied. Three received a rating of ‘low’ quality (Barratt, 2012; Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009; Rose, et al., 2016), three a ‘medium’ quality rating (Gilling, 2014; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012) and five a ‘high’ quality rating (Duquette, et al., 2012; Lyons, 2016; Taymans, et al., 2008; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017).

Of the 11 studies included in this analysis, seven were conducted in the UK, three in the USA (Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009; Taymans, et al., 2008) and one in Canada (Duquette, et al., 2012). Seven studies were published in peer-reviewed journals between 2008 and 2015. One study was identified through consultation with adoption experts or published on research websites (Rose, et al., 2016) and three are, as yet, unpublished doctoral theses (Lyons, 2016; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017).

Limiting the inclusion criteria to studies that focus on adopted children discounted many which considered looked after children. In line with most governments’ legislation, research on looked after children and young people is more prolific than that for those who are adopted. Of the 11 studies in the review, eight focused solely on adopted children, two considered fostered and adopted children (Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015) and one identified adopted children in a larger group of children with unmet attachment needs who have experienced trauma or neglect (Rose, et al., 2016). Seven of the studies do not specify the age of the adopted children; of those that do, three focus on pupils of primary school age (Gilling, 2014; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012) and one on adolescents/young adults (Duquette, et al., 2012).

Methodological appropriateness

Professionals are the sole or joint data respondent in the majority of the studies. Five studies (Barratt, 2012; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Rose, et al., 2016; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012; Taymans, et al., 2008) focus entirely on the views of professionals, while two consider both professional and parental views (Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017). Parents/carers are the data respondent in three studies (Duquette, et al., 2012; Lyons, 2016; Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009). Adopted children’s voices are strikingly absent from the findings of the studies reviewed, only one of which focuses on the view of an adopted child (Gilling, 2014).

The studies varied in sample size, ranging from account methodologies of one child (Gilling, 2014), which may limit generalisability of findings, through to medium-sized studies, including an evaluation of the experiences of 36 adoptive parents (Duquette, et al., 2012) to larger-scale data gathering, including an intervention involving 146 professionals (Taymans, et al., 2008). Even the larger studies have a relatively small number of respondents who cannot begin to capture the range of experiences and outcomes for the thousands of adoptive families in the UK.

Eight of the studies were qualitative evaluations and three were mixed methods investigations (Rose, et al., 2016; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Taymans, et al., 2008). Study designs were varied and included: six surveys (Duquette, et al., 2012; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012; Rose, et al., 2016; Taymans, et al., 2008); two account methodologies (Barratt, 2012; Gilling, 2014); semi-structured interviews (Stewart, 2017); and action research (Lyons, 2016).

An indication of their limited evidence base is that only three out of 11 of the studies focused upon reviewing an existing resource or support package for post-adoption support (Rose, et al., 2016; Stewart, 2017; Taymans, et al., 2008). The research of Lyons (2016) and Sohrabi-Shiraz (2014) involved the development and positive evaluation of a new resource. Three of the studies provided retrospective descriptions of experiences (Gilling, 2014; Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015; Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski and Buchstein, 2009) alongside recommendations for future provision. In addition, Barratt (2012) and Syne, Green and Dyer (2012) examined the experiences of a multi-agency team and Duquette and colleagues (2012) considered adoptive parents advocating for their adopted children; all three studies highlighted important elements of support.

Turning to practical strategies, the evidence for effective support or interventions for adopted children in school can be categorised under four themes: strategies for support; shared understanding; communication; and monitoring.

Strategies for support

The studies reviewed identified two main strategies for supporting adopted children in education: training (Rose, et al., 2016; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012; Taymans, et al., 2008) and support groups (Duquette, et al., 2012; Lyons, 2016; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012).

Training

Teachers view training about supporting adopted children in education as limited (Stewart, 2017). Rose and colleagues (2016) evaluated the impact of the Attachment Aware Schools action research project which involved classroom and online training commissioned to improve outcomes for ‘children with unmet attachment needs who have experienced trauma or neglect’. It offers practical, effective tools and techniques, including insights into attachment theory and the impact of trauma on the developing brain and subsequent behaviour; links are made to implications for school learning and opportunities to develop nurture groups and Theraplay through action research. Nearly all (97%) of the school staff felt that the project positively influenced their professional practice and 92% of them reported an increase in their confidence to use emotion coaching strategies. This is in line with the finding that many adopted children received support in school with an emphasis on emotional literacy (Stewart, 2017).

Taymans and colleagues (2008) explored 146 pre-service teachers’ and counsellors’ perceptions of the needs of adoptive children in school before and after a 75-minute educational intervention. This consisted of a reading assignment based on ‘SAFE at School’ (Schoettle, 2003) and an interactive presentation given by the Executive Director of the Centre for Adoption Support and Education (CASE). The evaluation (Taymans, et al., 2008) suggests that general training about ‘diversity’ or ‘attachment’ is unlikely to provide teachers with the awareness required to address the needs of adopted children and that a brief, standardised intervention during initial training would increase education professionals’ knowledge of the particular challenges which these children and their families can face in relation to school. However, the self-report nature of the questionnaire, the open-ended nature of the questions after the intervention and the fact that it had to be completed outside of regular class time may have influenced the results.

In an investigation of primary teachers’ perceptions about adopted children in education, Stewart (2017) explored existing support systems. This included an analysis of data from interviews with 15 parents and nine teachers and 84 questionnaires completed by primary school teachers. Two-fifths (61%) of the questionnaire respondents had received training on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and all felt this would be useful for other teachers. The interviews also identified a lack of teacher training and over-dependence upon parents as information providers. Only 61% of questionnaire respondents reported that they were aware of resources, interventions or support that they could access in school, e.g. in-class support or therapeutic support. But even then, Barratt (2012), in another study, found that few teachers accessed services for adopted children, in some cases due to support being viewed as unnecessary rather than difficulties in accessing them.

Sohrabi-Shiraz’s (2014) study was the only one in the review that developed and evaluated collaborative training with adoptive parents, school staff and professionals. When themes highlighted by a steering group were addressed through a bespoke training programme, pre- and post-measures revealed that participants’ understanding of the needs of adopted children increased after training. The data suggest that the role of the educational psychologist was central to the delivery of the programme and the continued work of support system development. As this training was bespoke and focused on participants’ knowledge, skills and experience, additional steps would need to be taken to make the package more generally applicable.

Lyons (2016) used collaborative action research to develop a resource to support adoptive parents in their communication with schools. This included information for them to complete on topics such as ‘aspects of the curriculum that adopted children may find difficult’ and ‘trust and control’. There are also opportunities for families to fill in individual details, such as ‘important people in my life’ and ‘how I communicate my needs’, as well as details of useful websites and books to share with school staff. Additional training for school staff about the impact of early developmental trauma and the needs of adoptive children was a key recommendation of this research.

Where these studies specify the age range of the adopted children, all were of pre-school or primary (elementary) school age. But primary and secondary (high) schools differ greatly with regard to systems of pastoral care for children and adolescents, and parental relationships with education staff alter as students become older. Some research findings for primary-aged pupils are unlikely to be relevant for older children.

Post-adoption parental support groups

Both adoptive parents and professionals viewed these groups as an essential source of support. The professionals involved in Syne, Green and Dyer’s (2012) research concluded that parents need opportunities after adoption to discuss and reflect upon the issues raised by the transition. Professionals have a role to play through attending groups, for example, to enhance understanding about school application processes, or by setting up groups for adopters within a certain school or geographical area; however, this relies upon capacity and resources. Many parents turn to support groups when they feel discouraged. As one such parent put it: ‘By talking to other parents it would give me the steam to go out and advocate again’ (Duquette, et al., 2012: 1214). The internet also was identified as an important source of practical and emotional support as it provided information and a method to connect with other parents.

There was no research evaluating post-adoption support groups for children and adolescents, yet in the researchers’ professional experience, adopted young people can benefit from actual and virtual support groups of their own. The increasing use of smart phones and social media means that support for young people and parents is more easily accessible and immediate. This brings its own challenges with both parties needing to assimilate these messages as part of a bigger package of support.

Shared understanding

Adoptive families, like all families, are as different as they are similar. When school staff are aware of adopted children on their roll, it is important that key members take the time to develop a shared understanding of each adoptive family (Lyons, 2016). However, local authorities and/or individual schools may find this difficult as parents are sometimes reluctant to reveal their child’s adoptive status. Barratt (2012) gives an example of how a father, himself adopted, felt that his son would be ‘more vulnerable to criticism and racism’ if staff and other children knew about the boy’s background. No detail is given about the ethos of the school or whether staff were open and honest about the benefits of sharing this information. Thus, adoptive parents often need considerable encouragement to see the value of developing this shared understanding. This creates a potential dilemma for schools about whether to request details about a child’s adoptive status or wait for parents to reveal it.

As with all home‒school partnerships, adoptive parents, adopted children and school staff need to work in an alliance that is based upon trust, respect and mutual collaboration (Duquette, et al., 2012). Further considerations for the families include parents’ perceptions that school staff are the gatekeepers to resources (Gilling, 2014) and school staff believing that adopted children are less vulnerable than looked after children, that those who are doing well do not need help or that highlighting differences could be counter-productive (Stewart, 2017). In the researchers’ professional experience, these beliefs can be unhelpful and lead to misperceptions or mistrust. School staff who involve parents in decisions about how to spend the Pupil Premium Plus for Adopted Children (Gore Langton, 2016) and encourage open and honest conversations are likely to have more effective collaborations.

The parents involved in Duquette and colleagues’ (2012) research stress that the educational experiences of adopted children are directly linked to their advocacy efforts on behalf of the child. It is important that everyone involved understands the others’ perspectives and that the development of a shared understanding of the needs of individuals is co-constructed between staff, parents and children through communication and systems that are empowering for parents and children.

Communication

Advice from teachers to teachers is that it is important to ‘keep channels of communication open’ (Nowak-Fabrykowski, 2015). Some families report that they do not know how to start the process or what to say in relation to their adopted child’s journey and wish for support (Cooper and Johnson, 2007). A framework can aid communication for school staff and parents. Syne, Green and Dyer (2012) evaluated the use of an Education Plan for Adopted Children (EPAC) and concluded that this process and framework could reduce school staff anxieties about approaching adoptive parents and allow parents to identify their children as being adopted without feeling they will be stigmatised. Arguably, any ‘system’ like this can be viewed as unfair from a parent’s point of view due to the perception that those who are able to make sense of it have greater and quicker access to support (Duquette, et al., 2012).

Lyons (2016) used collaborative action research to develop a resource to support communication between parents and schools. The focus group involved positively evaluated the use of guided role-play scripts for parents to scaffold and support participants to practise their skills in communicating with school staff. But it is possible that the participants were well disposed to this type of activity whereas others would find it a nerve-racking experience and prefer to talk things through with someone they trust, or perhaps be accompanied for the discussion. An interesting finding from this research concerns understanding how parents perceive their position in the ‘communication arena’; many feel that professionals ‘own’ this particular space and previous experiences of disempowerment influence their communication with school staff.

Although it is well recognised that children will also need ongoing support with their communication with adults and peers, their voices are conspicuously absent from the studies discussed in this review. An identified role of parents and professionals was to help adopted children to tell their story (Barratt, 2012) in the way they wish, at the time they want and to support them after they have done so.

Communication is also needed on a wider scale. A conclusion of Taymans and colleagues’ (2008) evaluation of a training resource was that staff want more information on multi-agency sources of support and that adoptive families benefit from staff who can sensitively refer them on. Consequently, adopted children and adoptive parents should participate in local service planning (NICE, 2015) and mechanisms auspicious for such involvement, such as parent consultation groups, have been identified (Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012).

Monitoring

Once strategies and systems have been set up to support the needs of adopted children and their families, it is important that they are regularly and collaboratively monitored and reviewed (Duquette, et al., 2012; Syne, Green and Dyer, 2012). Statutory processes such as Individual Education Plan (IEPs) and EHCPs can be used to do this if pupils have been identified as having Special Educational Needs (Department for Education, 2014b) but these processes typically miss some adopted children. Syne and colleagues evaluated the use of a specific Education Plan for Adopted Children (EPAC) as a method of planning and monitoring support on a short- and medium-term basis and found that parents considered it to be highly beneficial in supporting transitions such as starting a new school or a new class.

Discussion

Through systematically reviewing and synthesising relevant existing literature, this study aimed to establish up-to-date, international evidence for effective post-adoption support and interventions for adopted children within educational settings. There is very little published research in this area and none of it presents the perspectives of the children themselves. A search for papers about strategies and interventions specifically for adopted children in education yielded very few results; most focused on such children within a larger sample. There was also a disappointing lack of studies with high methodological quality or appropriateness within peer-reviewed journals; additional searches were conducted that led to the inclusion of an unpublished paper from a research website and three unpublished doctoral theses. In total, 11 studies were identified and due to the low numbers, none were excluded on the grounds of low methodological quality or appropriateness. Of the five high quality papers (Duquette, et al., 2012; Lyons, 2016; Taymans, et al., 2008; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017), three (Lyons, Sohrabi-Shiraz and Stewart) are as yet, unpublished doctoral theses. It is recognised that theses have a greater word count within which to demonstrate high methodological quality. The three papers with high methodological appropriateness were a peer-reviewed journal paper (Taymans, et al., 2008), a paper sourced through a research website (Rose, et al., 2016) and a thesis (Stewart, 2017). Only one study had one adopted young person as a data respondent. Consequently, the vast majority of conclusions are based upon evidence from small and selective groups of professionals and parents.

Planning effective post-adoption support within educational settings requires interdisciplinary learning and cross-disciplinary support. Research about adopted children in education is of interest to many professional groups but appears to be led by none. The journals in which relevant studies were located varied in their target audience, including teachers and head teachers, clinical and educational psychologists, CAMHS practitioners, social workers and psychiatrists. The research foci of the studies were disparate, ranging from retrospective accounts about service inadequacy (Gilling, 2014) to participatory action research resulting in the production of a resource (Lyons, 2016). The research appears to be dictated by context (Barratt, 2012; Gilling, 2014) and utility considerations (Rose, et al., 2016) rather than wider and longer-term aims to improve understanding of this area. A co-ordinated approach to research and the dissemination of knowledge is required to avoid inadequate and inconsistent service planning and delivery.

At the ground level, the review confirmed that the perception of teachers and other school staff of their role in supporting adopted children varied considerably across the studies. Indeed, some teachers felt that not all adopted children need support and that ‘highlighting differences could have a negative effect’ (Stewart, 2017). Increasing demands on schools to meet targets relating to academic attainment may encourage a view that teachers ‘are not social workers’ and that their role is specifically to promote adopted children’s educational attainment rather than providing holistic support. This confusion among the most willing of staff about the role of schools may cause some parents to hide their child’s adoptive status until problems arise.

Many adopted children have unstable early experiences -- stability at home and school is important, especially as children reach adolescence. Research around post-adoption support to prevent adoption breakdown (e.g. Selwyn, Wijedasa and Meakings, 2014) is more prolific than post-adoption support to prevent school exclusion and non-engagement. The former focuses upon the family as a system, while in the latter, the family are included within a wider network alongside educational establishments and wider community services. The relationship between these two contexts needs to be complementary if help for children and families is to be effective.

It is also clear that school staff are often unsure about where to access support for adopted children in school. However, new legislation stipulated in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 requires schools to identify a named member of staff for adopted children; this means that services can be proactive in offering strategies for support to a named contact. The use of a framework such as EPAC to facilitate communication and monitoring may be helpful, although staff, who are inundated with requests to develop plans for every area of their work, may need convincing of the value of one that is non-statutory.

Five of the studies reviewed concluded that training for school staff working with adopted children was an effective strategy (Lyons, 2016; Rose, et al., 2016; Sohrabi-Shiraz, 2014; Stewart, 2017; Taymans, et al., 2008). Training packages varied in their content, with some following a manualised approach and others developed to focus upon the participants’ needs, prompting consideration of a trade-off between needs and efficiency. Increased manualisation reduces the requirement for highly specialist delivery and follow-up support, thereby reducing cost and potentially increasing breadth of access. A combination of training within initial teacher training programmes and continued professional development is likely to provide the greatest increase in the awareness of professionals and so the biggest impact upon the educational needs of adopted children.

Conclusion

Recent English legislation has identified adopted children as a distinct priority group, in need of support in education. At the same time, the low numbers of high quality, relevant research papers and virtual absence of evidence-based interventions found in this review suggest that the UK Government’s ambition, to provide ongoing support to adoptive children and families, is unlikely to be achieved by the 2020 target.

Despite the limitations of this review, there are some important messages. Currently, evidence-based practice is minimal and the creation of knowledge about effective intervention and support relies too heavily on the views of adults. If the Government’s aims are to be achieved, further research is required that incorporates the views of the adopted children and young people concerned. They are likely to have opinions on how best to support them; they should be encouraged to participate in planning services through schools and local authorities. Service development and research that is steered and co-produced by adopted young people has the potential to inform strategy decisions and organisational change that genuinely could improve their long-term outcomes in education and beyond.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Andi Stother is an educational psychologist in the City of York.

Kevin Woods is programme director, Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology, University of Manchester.

Sarah McIntosh is a senior educational psychologist, One Education, Manchester.

References

Barratt

(2012) Adopted children and education: the experiences of a specialist CAMHS team. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17(1): 141‒150.

Bond

Woods

Humphrey

, et al. (2013) Practitioner review: The effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy with children and families ‒ systematic and critical evaluation of the literature from 1990–2010. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(7): 707‒723.

Cooper

Johnson

(2007) Education: the views of adoptive parents. Adoption & Fostering 31(1): 21‒27.

Department for Education (2014a) Key Stage 2 Attainment for Children Recorded as Adopted from Care. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-2-attainment-for-children-recorded-as-adopted-from-care

Department for Education (2014b) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

Department for Education (2016a) Outcomes for children looked after by local authorities in England, 31 March 2016: Additional tables. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/613306/SFR12_2017_Additional_Tables_Text.pdf

Department for Education (2016b) Adoption: A vision for change. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adoption-a-vision-for-change

Department for Education (2018) Promoting the education of looked-after children and previously looked-after children. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/promoting-the-education-of-looked-after-children#history

Duquette

Stodel

Fullarton

Hagglund

(2012) Educational advocacy among adoptive parents of adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16(11): 1203‒1221.

10.

Ezzamel

Bond

(2016) How have target pupil, peer and school level outcomes related to peer-mediated interventions for pupils with ASD been evaluated? European Journal of Special Needs Education (online). doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194568

11.

Gilling

(2014) Jasper’s story: ‘Letting me down and picking me up’– one boy’s story of despair and hope at primary schools in England. Adoption & Fostering 38(1): 60‒72.

12.

Gore Langton

(2016) Adopted and permanently placed children in education: from rainbows to reality. Educational Psychology in Practice 33(1): 1‒15.

13.

Gough

(2007) Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education 22(2): 213‒228.

14.

Gough

Oliver

Thomas

(2013) Learning from Research: Systematic reviews for informing policy decisions: A quick guide. London: Nesta.

15.

Gough

Thomas

Oliver

(2012) Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews 1(1): 28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

16.

Langton

Boy

(2017) Becoming an Adoption-Friendly School: A whole-school resource for supporting children who have experienced trauma or loss. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

17.

Law

Woods

(2018) Representation of the management of behavioural difficulties within educational psychologists’ practice. Educational Psychology in Practice 34(4): 352‒369. doi: org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1466269

18.

Lyons

(2016) Using collaborative action research to support adoptive parents in their communications with school staff (unpublished DEdPsychol thesis). University of Manchester.

19.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

20.

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) (2015) Children’s Attachment: Attachment in children and young people who are adopted from care, in care or at risk of going into care, NICE guideline [NG26]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng26

21.

Nowak-Fabrykowski

(2015) Nurturing development of foster and adopted children. Early Child Development and Care 185(3): 486‒495.

22.

Nowak‐Fabrykowski

Helinski

Buchstein

(2009) Reflection of foster parents on caring for foster and adopted children and their suggestions to teachers. Early Child Development and Care 179(7): 879‒887.

23.

Pennington

(2012) It takes a village to raise a child. Adoption UK. Available at: www.adoptionuk.org/sites/default/files/documents/Ittakesavillagetoraiseachild-Report-June12.pdf

24.

Rose

McGuire-Snieckus

Wood

Vatminides

(2016) Impact Evaluation of Attachment Aware Schools Project for B&NES Virtual School: Phase 1 Pilot Study-Combined Summary Report. Bath: Institute for Education, Bath Spa University.

25.

Schoettle

(2003) SAFE (Support for Adoptive Families by Educators) at School. Silver Spring, MD: The Center for Adoption Support and Education.

26.

Selwyn

Wijedasa

Meakings

(2014) Beyond the Adoption Order: Challenges, interventions and adoption disruption. London: DfE Publications.

27.

Snape

Atkinson

(2016) The evidence for student-focused motivational interviewing in educational settings: a review of the literature. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 9(2): 119‒139. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2016.1157027

28.

Sohrabi-Shiraz

(2014) Creating an attachment theory and adoption psychology based training programme for parents and school staff (unpublished DEdPsychol thesis). University of Manchester.

29.

Stewart

(2017) Children adopted from care: teacher constructions of need and support (unpublished DEdPsychol thesis). Cardiff University.

30.

Stother

(2017) The role of the educational psychologist in post-adoption support (unpublished DEdPsychol research paper). University of Manchester.

31.

Syne

Green

Dyer

(2012). Adoption: the lucky ones or the Cinderellas of children in care? Educational and Child Psychology 29(3): 93‒103.

32.

Taymans

Marotta

Lynch

, et al. (2008) Adoption as a diversity issue in professional preparation: perceptions of preservice education professionals. Adoption Quarterly 11(1): 24‒44.

33.

Tyrell

Woods

(2018) Methods used to elicit the views of children and young people with autism: a systematic review of the evidence. British Journal of Special Education 45(3): 302‒328. doi: org/10.1111/1467-8578.12235

34.

Welsh Government (2012) Tackling the Impact of Poverty on Educational Attainment. Cardiff: Llywodraeth Cymru.

35.

Wijedasa

Selwyn

(2011) Transition to Adulthood for Young People in Adoptive Care: Secondary analyses of data from longitudinal study of young people in England (LSYPE). Bristol: Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies.

36.

White

(2017) Adoption UK’s Schools & Exclusions Report. Banbury: Adoption UK.

37.

White

(2018) Bridging the Gap: Giving adopted children an equal chance in school. Banbury: Adoption UK.

38.

Zill

(2015) Why adopted children still struggle over time. The Atlantic, 2 December. Available at: www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/adoption-happily-ever-after-myth/418230/

39.

Zill

Bradford Wilcox

(2018) The Adoptive Difference: New evidence on how adopted children perform in school. Institute of Family Studies, 26 March. Available at: https://ifstudies.org/blog/responding-to-questions-about-the-adoptive-difference-