A project designed to establish peer group supervision for teaching assistants (TAs) at Rumworth School, a secondary special school in the North West of England, has shown important outcomes which can be applied in all schools.
The school is an 11-19 provision for up to 240 young people with learning difficulties and additional needs. The complex SEND catered for by the school includes moderate learning difficulties, severe learning difficulties, complex needs, autistic spectrum conditions, hearing impairment, visual impairment, physical disability and social, emotional and mental health needs.
Background
The project was conceived as a means of supporting TA practice in the challenging environment of special education. The model of implementation is based on action learning (Jarvis, 2010) so enabling TAs to develop supervision skills and knowledge that prepares them for participating in and facilitating peer group supervision.
Peer group supervision (PGS) is an effective means of supporting professional development and learning and can be described as:
“a structured, supportive practice in which colleagues, in pairs or in groups, use their professional knowledge and relationship expertise to monitor practice and effectiveness on a regular basis for the purpose of improving our practice and facilitating professional development” (Wilkerson, 2006, p. 62).
Group supervision is one of a range of models employed within health and social care by nurses, counsellors and psychotherapists used to advance critical reflection on practice (Proctor, 2008). Group supervision has been found to generate benefits in healthcare settings such as providing opportunities for learning and establishing common ground between participants and sharing of different perspectives (Bogo et al 2011; Buus et al., 2011). Provision of support has been cited as a positive outcome (Lakeman and Glasgow 2009) and group supervision is identified as a means of dealing with emotion (Taylor, 2013). Conversely, risks of group supervision have been highlighted such as creating role confusion (Bogo et al., 2011) and perhaps most significant, the potential for group composition and dynamics to negatively impact supervisory relationships within the group (White and Winstanley, 2010;Brink et al., 2012).
The impetus for this project came from the head teacher’s awareness of positive outcomes from research undertaken on an inter-professional peer clinical supervision group in a healthcare setting (Johnson, 2016). Clinical supervision for healthcare and therapy practitioners is used to develop critical self-reflection on practice, facilitate learning and personal development and promote safe and effective practice (Bond and Holland, 2010). This project aimed to transfer the concept to an education setting with the focus on teaching assistants. An independent trainer with experience of developing peer supervision groups was engaged to facilitate the project.
The SLT and the governing body approved the project in December 2015 with a member of SLT taking responsibility for the project as part of the CPD portfolio.
Purpose and intended outcomes of Rumworth TA peer supervision
TAs in special education are employed in a range of roles to support young people and their individual learning needs. The scope of support includes: preparing learning materials under teacher supervision; working inside or outside the classroom with individuals and small groups; adapting support according to need; creating a stimulating environment; gathering and recording information to help teachers, including assessment of progress and review meetings; looking after young people’s physical, social and emotional welfare, including behaviour support. In light of the remit of TAs within school, the purpose and intended outcomes for peer group supervision were agreed:
- Support TA practice
- Facilitate TA professional development, including identifying areas for training
- Facilitate individual TAs in developing special areas of interest/expertise
- Engage TAs in critical self-reflection on their practice
- Facilitate TAs’ development of challenging skills and engagement in professional dialogue
- Enable access to new and different perspectives on TA practice
- Facilitate best practice as regards teaching and learning and behaviour management
- Facilitate development of peer supervision skills, including group facilitation
- Review effectiveness of peer supervision
- Inform whole school strategy regarding TA training and development needs
- Implementation
TA peer supervision at Rumworth is what it says- groups of beween six to eight TAs forming fixed peer groups with members providing support and challenge for their own and each other’s practice.
The initial phase of the project engaged eight TA volunteers to form an action learning group facilitated by an independent trainer. Once the initial phase was complete, the newly trained facilitators formed pairs and allocated themselves to the four groups of TAs drawn from across the school. The schedule of PSGs was inputted to the school CPD calendar meeting for one hour once per half term.
The eight facilitators continued to meet with the trainer in their action learning group once per half term to access support and further develop their facilitation skills.
Table 1: Stages of project
| Phase 1 January 2016-June 2016 |
Project launch and recruitment of eight facilitator volunteers and expressions of interest for group membership
Commencement of facilitator action learning group – February 2016 |
| Phase 2 June 2016-June 2017 |
TA facilitators presentation and feedback to TA colleagues June 2016
Allocation of group members to four peer supervision groups (24 PSG members – six per group + two facilitators) Commencement of four PSGs September 2016 On-going facilitator action learning group TA CPD session on critical reflection on TA practice + further recruitment to groups June 2017 |
| Phase 3 September 2017-July 2018 |
Reconfiguration of PSGs and development of additional facilitators October 2017
Report to school governors On-going support of facilitators Commencement of new PSGs October 2017 |
Key process activities
The facilitators’ action learning group was essentially a template for peer group supervision, so providing a ‘model’ experience using experiential techniques (Johnson and Johnson, 2013). The facilitators’ group had access to a bespoke learning resource and the independent trainer acted as group facilitator in the early stages, gradually enabling group members to take turns in the facilitator role over the series of sessions.
The initial session was devoted entirely to developing a contract for the group. This session was powerful and created the initial platform for group members to explore confidentiality and begin to build the necessary trust to make the group a safe space. The experience with the TA peer facilitators’ group mirrored that of an inter-professional peer group developed during an action research project in healthcare (Johnson, 2016) highlighting the crucial aspects in peer group supervision of structure and understanding of what confidentiality means. Of particular importance is the discussion around when confidential information may need to be shared outside the group and when individual group members will need to be supported to take action. This process is set out in the contract (see appendix).
A process model was employed to structure and manage group processes. The model deployed is commonly used in health and social care settings (Page and Woskett, 2015) and adapted for use for the project. This model has five stages: Contract – Focus – Space – Bridge – Review. As with the health practitioners in an inter-professional group (Johnson, 2016), the TAs found this initially rather mechanical and clumsy, but soon appreciated how it enabled them to allocate time fairly, move issues along, manage the discussion and prevent the session descending into a general chat or moaning session.
The groups have no pre-determined agenda, apart from reference to the agreed purpose, with the process in each session commencing with the facilitator asking group members if they have any issues they wish to share. Time is then allocated according to how many group members wish to raise an issue. Each person then has time to detail the issue (Focus). Discussion is then opened to the whole group (Space) with the facilitator managing the process, for example, preventing people talking over each other. In peer supervision, all group members are co-supervisors – it is not the facilitators who provide analysis and feedback.
The TA presenting the issue is then helped to identify what they have learned from the discussion and what and how any action will be taken (Bridge). The Review is a crucial component at the end of every session as it requires group members to reflect on the experience and discuss the process of supervision, including feedback to the facilitators and how the session felt for each individual. Facilitating a PSG is a complex process and the TA facilitators are essentially novices in this area, so allocating two facilitators to each group and continuing the facilitators’ action learning group alongside is a means of providing support and development for those individuals.
Content
Following completion of Phase 2, the experience was evaluated and the main themes emerging from the sessions summarised. Of interest to participants and senior leaders was the focus of session content (see Table 2).
Table 2: TA peer supervision group session content
| Key TA practice issues addressed within peer group supervision |
| Behaviour management of students - both broad approaches and individual student’s behaviour – examples of positive and negative experiences, e.g. deployment of successful Team Teach de-escalation, support and training requirements |
| Exploring understanding re student mental health issues, including training needs |
| Details of working with specific student groups in school to develop positive learning experiences – examples of specific learning strategies shared |
| Thoughts and opinions on how different colleagues/teams work |
| Dealing with stressful situations/ things that didn’t go as well as expected – personal emotional debrief |
| Coping with change – school environment/site, roles and responsibilities, staffing, team structures and relationships, changing student population profile |
| Support for new staff – ideas and strategies such as mentoring and induction |
From the trainer/facilitator’s perspective, it was interesting to see the common themes emerging with research undertaken with an inter-professional peer supervision group in healthcare (Johnson, 2016). The need to vent emotion, often related to coping with change, was a strong theme in the action research study in healthcare (Johnson, 2016) and was paralleled in the TA facilitators’ group. Problem-solving, and as TAs became more confident, challenging each other’s perspectives was another common theme between the two settings. Issues about team work and team dynamics and dealing with stressful situations also occurred as content in both groups. The importance of structure in creating a ‘safe space’ was a critical factor for TAs and healthcare practitioners– so developing a contract that became embedded with the group was essential for both settings in developing trust. Without trust, group members will not be prepared to make themselves vulnerable by discussing practice issues they feel unsure about.
A key difference between the inter-professional group in healthcare and the TA group was that all the healthcare practitioners had professional qualifications that had required them to utilise critical reflection as a formal tool. The range of educational experience was more varied with the TA group and so appropriate input in action learning sessions included theory and specific experiential learning.
Challenges and constraints
The implementation of PSGs in Phase 2 highlighted a number of constraints and challenges, such as lack of confidential venues for sessions within school, particularly due to the loss of space following serious storm damage to the building at Easter 2016.
As the newly formed PSGs became established, it was clear that some individual group members struggled to engage productively in sessions despite facilitators’ best efforts. This may have been due to them being uncomfortable with the group composition, or simply a lack of commitment to the concept - so just not ‘getting it’ or choosing to ignore the stated purpose. On occasion, the novice facilitators had to cope with a dominant individual within their group producing a negative and inhibiting atmosphere. Such behaviour is not uncommon in group situations (Johnson and Johnson, 2013) and support for the facilitators in dealing with this problem was provided at the facilitators’ action learning sessions. Should situations not resolve, individuals can change groups and, ultimately, those who don’t feel able to commit to the process need to exit the group and engage in an alternative CPD activity.
The original configuration of groups created a beneficial mix of staff from different departments of the school and this was inevitably compromised by necessary changes in TA deployment following recruitment of new staff and the expansion of the school student population, including an increasing number of students with more complex needs. Logistical issues such as the split sites proved problematic on occasion e.g. getting to sessions on time.
These issues prompted a decision to re-configure groups and invite additional members to join in Phase 3.
Outcomes
Feedback about the experience of peer supervision generated important outcomes from the project to date.
The sessions were identified as ‘providing time to think’ – an important factor given the intense nature of every school day. Facilitators commented that the experience had enabled them to fully appreciate confidentiality – of particular importance was the creation of a contract so that they were confident ‘things won’t leak out’. Facilitators felt able to support each other, e.g. provided debriefing for individuals in stressful and emotional situations such as safeguarding situations. It is important to note that this refers to the personal experience of the individual group member and the impact of dealing with a situation and not to the discussion of the safeguarding issue itself. It was very interesting in this type of situation that the group spontaneously discussed the scope and appropriateness of the issue for peer group supervision, including the focus of how and what would be discussed, before the individual group member shared the experience.
In line with the purpose of the school’s peer group supervision project, good practice was shared, so enabling members to gain new knowledge and be exposed to different perspectives from other group members. For example, good ideas were generated for resolving and/or coping with situations with particular students or groups and on occasion with colleagues. This highlights the value of the group being comprised of TAs from different departments resulting in a deeper understanding about what happens elsewhere, about unfamiliar students and the different learning strategies employed – so lots of detail was provided that was both contextual and specific to a given situation.
Another aspect of this mix in group composition was that members were able to get to know colleagues with whom they do not usually work on a daily basis so building and strengthening relationships.
Each session commences with a re-cap from last time and this was useful in enabling the group to ensure action had been taken where necessary and if the situation had been resolved or was on-going. For example, this enabled feedback on a positive outcome for a student moving classes, despite doubts of the TA at the time.
Facilitators were able to flag important issues and agree about sharing information outside of the group, such as adding detail to behaviour management plans. An escalation process was agreed with SLT, enabling key issues to be addressed, for example, a suggestion for additional behaviour management training.
Group members learned to challenge constructively within the group, for example, about each other’s assumptions and prejudices, and gained confidence in providing constructive feedback to colleagues in day-to-day practice.
TA facilitators indicated they had learned about the different roles and responsibilities in peer group supervision, including doing facilitation, ensuring fair time allocation, taking notes and using a model as structure for sessions
Next stage development
Using an action learning model, the aim is to build a critical mass of TAs with skills in peer group supervision. A new action learning group of six new co-facilitators has been established and each new co-facilitator is now paired with an existing facilitator to run six newly configured PSGs that commenced in October 2017.
The ultimate aim is that PSGs will rotate the facilitator role, so allowing the majority of TAs to gain this experience. This will allow peer group supervision to be sustainable within a dynamic organisation that has to respond to on-going change.
Dr Claire Johnson PhD, MSc, BNurs, FHEA is an education researcher and writer.
Appendix: Rumworth School TA Peer Group Supervision Contract (de-personalised)
The nine of us discussed the important issues we need to agree on to be able to work together and create a safe space to conduct an effective peer supervision facilitators group.
Arrangements
- Frequency
- Timing
- The venue
- We will make sure everyone who wants gets a drink at the start of the session
- We agree to commit to attending all planned sessions unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as sick leave. Workload is not a reason not to attend.
Confidentiality
- What is said in the room stays in the room
There will be no ‘Chinese whispers’ – we all agree not to give hints about what has been discussed within the group.
However, there are issues where confidentiality cannot be maintained. This could include when there are unresolved safeguarding issues and where there is risk of harm to students or staff (including us as group members). This includes issues relating to staff welfare.
Where a serious risk is identified, we agree to support the individual group member concerned to take the required action, including escalating the issue to the appropriate person outside the group. This might mean offering to go along with that person to see the relevant person/take appropriate action.
We will all take responsibility as a group to review outcomes and actions in supervision sessions.
As a last resort where there are real concerns regarding serious harm, the group accepts collective responsibility to escalate concerns as appropriate, even if the person concerned does not agree.
Anonymity – we will try not to identify individuals by name when we share issues/episodes unless there is good reason for example, if the issue was relating to the behaviour management/implementation of learning strategies with a specific student.
However, we all appreciate that we all work within a relatively small environment and some of us work closely together at times, so it may not always be possible to maintain anonymity even when names are not used. We agree that where this does occur we will be vigilant in not disclosing this information outside the group.
Behaviours
We will deal sensitively with each other; we will not say belittling things or use ‘put downs’.
We are free to ask the ‘daft’ question because no question is actually ‘daft’ if it makes things clear.
We will be courteous to each other at all times - each of us has a right to be heard, so we will listen and there will be no talking over each other.
We will be respectful – each of us is entitled to our opinions and views.
Learning
An important aspect of the group is about learning and development of peer group supervision and the enhancement of TA practice so there will be occasions we actively want and need to take learning ‘outside’ this group. This might be, for example, ideas about facilitation skills or support strategies for students. In such instances permission to share ‘outside’ will be given by the whole group. Learning themes and ideas may be anonymised as necessary when they are shared. This would not apply to specific learning strategies in respect of individual students when it would be inappropriate to anonymise learning.
We all want to develop our understanding of peer group supervision and develop from peer group members into facilitators – this learning will be important when we establish the peer supervision groups going forward.
Recording
We agree to make bullet point records of each meeting – we will need to take turns at doing this. The records will be of topics and themes of the discussion and not verbatim accounts. Individual group members can choose to make notes for personal use, eg for their own learning, but these must be kept confidential.
We will review the contract at the end of our initial action learning set
Signed
References
Bogo, M., Patterson, J., Tufford, L. & King, R. (2011) Interprofessional Clinical Supervision in Mental Health and Addiction: Towards Identifying Common Elements. The Clinical Supervisor. 30, 124-140. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Bond, M., & Holland, S. (2010) (Second Edition) Skills of Clinical Supervision for Nurses. A practical guide for supervisees, clinical supervisors and managers. Berkshire: Open University Press
Brink, P., Back-Pettersson, S., Sernert, N. (2012) Group supervision as a means of developing professional competence within pre-hospital care. International Emergency Nursing, 20, 76-82. Elsivier Ltd
Buus, N., Angel, S., Traynor, M., Gonge, H. (2011) Psychiatric nursing staff members’ reflections on participating in group-based clinical supervision: A semistructured interview study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 20, 95-101. Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.
Jarvis, P. (2010) (4th Edition) Adult Education and Lifelong Learning theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Johnson, C. (2016) Developing Inter-Professional Peer Group Clinical Supervision – An action Research Study in Healthcare. Doctoral thesis unpublished . University of Huddersfield Repository https://eprints.hud.ac.uk
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (2013) (11th Edition) Joining together Group Theory and Group Skills. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Lakeman, R., & Glasgow, C. (2009) Introducing peer-group supervision: An action research project. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 18, 204-210. Australian College of Mental Health Nurses
Page, S., & Wosket, V. (3rd Edition) (2015) Supervising the counsellor and psychotherapist a cyclical model. Hove: Routledge.
Proctor, B. (2nd Edition) (2008) Group supervision: A guide to creative practice. London: Sage Publications.
Taylor, C. (2013) Receiving group clinical supervision a phenomenological study. British Journal of Nursing, 22 (15) 861-866, DOI:10.12968/bjon.2013-22.15.861
Wilkerson K. (2006) Peer supervision for the professional development of school counselors: Toward an understanding of terms and findings. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 59-67
White, E., & Winstanley, J. (2010) A randomised controlled trial of clinical supervision: selected findings from a novel Australian attempt to establish the evidence base for causal relationships with quality of care and patient outcomes, as an informed contribution to mental health nursing practice development. Journal of Research in Nursing, 15 (2) 151-167, Sage Publications.