Qualitative studies into bullying within
Bullying special schools
Deirdre A. Torrance
Deirdre A. Torrance, the winner of the 1997 Stanley
Segal Award, outlines how the past decade has
witnessed a substantial increase of interest in the
nature and extent of bullying in British schools. To
date, large scale and quantitative studies have been
extremely important in identifying the prevalence of
bullying, in securing funding, in enabling projects
and interventions to be developed and in raising
questions for further investigation. It is suggested
that a different emphasis is needed in research
designed to find lasting solutions, and that the focus
is placed as much on the intention as on the effect;
identifying the social context within which bullying
occurs and including the nature of schools and the
interactions of staff, pupils and parents. This article
presents a case study of Special School X.
Current research methods and findings
Although there was little British research into bullying
before the 1980s, large-scale studies such as Kidscape
(Elliott, 1992), the Sheffield projects (Ahmad & Smith,
1990; Ahmad, Whitney & Smith, 1991; Whitney & Smith,
1993), and the Scottish Office project (Mellor, 1995) have
contributed significantly to British perspectives.
It appears from the literature that specific factors influence
the extent of bullying evidenced in schools:
• certain locations within and around a school are ‘hot
spots’ for bullying (Sharp, 1996);
• age and/or stage appear to be an important factor
affecting experiences of bullying, particularly the
primary to secondary transition (Cullingford &
Morrison, 1995; Branwhite, 1994);
• gender may affect the type and frequency of bullying,
and boys are more likely to be involved and are more
physical in their bullying behaviours. Male pupils,
however, may be more willing to admit to bullying;
• the influence of ethnic factors is unclear, although
hostility may be attributed to racism rather than
bullying (Siann, Callaghan, Glissov, Lockhart &
Rawson, 1994; DES, 1989).
An understanding of the longer-term implications of
bullying has also been gained from existing research.
Bullying may lead to depression; truancy; underachievement
and a growing belief by the victims that they deserve to be
bullied; and a loss of self-esteem and/or social-emotional
difficulties lasting into adulthood. Olweus (1996) suggests
that victims are prone to absenteeism and to attempts at
16 British Journal of Special Education
suicide. Bullies themselves do not appear to ‘grow out of
it’ and Johnstone, Munn and Edwards (1991) suggest that
children who are ‘successful’ at bullying will continue to
bully throughout their school careers. Bullies, like their
victims, can also suffer from poor health and depression
(Slee, 1995). Tattum and Herbert (1990) refer to research
from America and Norway which indicates that most
bullies achieve little at school, leave school early and
then, especially in the case of boys, become involved in
violent and criminal activity, and suggest that aggressive
behaviours are evidenced in later roles as adults and
parents. Tattum (1993) adds that such bullying behaviour
may pass down through generations of families. Evidence
from Swedish crime reports (Olweus, 1996) and from
research at Goldsmiths College, London (Duin, 1997)
supports the view that school bullies are four times more
likely to become involved in criminal activity than other
children. Duin (1997) also suggests that bullying can lead
to crime and repeated offending, and Cullingford and
Morrison (1995) find a link between bullying and
criminality, although they recognise the importance of
other contributory factors. Funding for intervention
strategies could be viewed as a long-term investment and
can be justified in terms of reducing longer-term funding
for health care, police, legal systems and prisons.
What is not yet known about bullying
More recently, research has focused on addressing bullying
rather than simply studying its existence, although many
intervention strategies have been disappointing in the
extent to which they reduced bullying. If researchers and
practitioners are to develop an in-depth understanding of
bullying within a social setting, supported by findings
which lead to a better understanding of intervention
strategies, greater emphasis needs to be placed on
qualitative research.
An extensive review of the literature (Torrance, 1998)
revealed that currently there is a dearth of qualitative
research into bullying (Cullingford & Morrison, 1995;
Boulton, 1995), which may seem surprising when, in the
early 1990s, authors such as La Fontaine (1991) were
advocating the exploration of the social context within
which bullying occurs. Although the subversive nature of
bullying may create barriers to ethnographic investigations,
this method offers the advantage of reaching an implicit
understanding of a group and interpreting experiences
from the participants’ own points of view (Robson, 1993).
The form and perceived effects of bullying are socially
constructed (Gibbs & Stiker, 1996) and there is a
danger that when bullying is divorced from its social
context, investigations become limited dry questions and
answers.
Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000)
Surprisingly, Hill (1995) found that, owing to their
comparatively small size, very little ethnographic
research has been carried out in special schools, and there
is a notable lack of research into bullying within the
field of special educational needs, particularly within
provision catering for pupils with SEBD (social, emotional
and behavioural difficulties). Thus it is very difficult to
assess the extent to which pupils with special educational
needs are affected by bullying. Some studies have
incorporated evidence from the children themselves
(Jenner & Greetham, 1995); some have built in mechanisms
to facilitate the participation of children with SEN
(special educational needs) (Whitney & Smith, 1993);
others (Train, 1995) make bold but unsubstantiated
statements about how children with SEN are more likely
to be affected by bullying as they offer an easy excuse
for bullying and can be more isolated, vulnerable,
fragile, and have ‘heightened sensitivity’ leading them to
‘overreact’.
O’Moore (1995) presents one of the few studies which
has actively sought the experiences of pupils with SEN,
and suggests that those who are withdrawn from classes
for learning support or who receive their education in
special classes are at significant risk of being involved in
bullying, either as bullies or as victims. The Kingston
upon Hull Special Educational Needs Support Service has
found that a disproportionate number of referrals to its
Anti-Bullying Project have come from children with SEN
(Young, 1998).
The few studies which explore the implications of bullying
for children with SEN do not make specific reference to
children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties,
although Nabuzoka, Whitney, Smith and Thompson
(1993) reflect that:
‘If the samples had included many children with
emotional and behavioural needs, incidence of
bully/victim problems reported would almost certainly
have been higher.’
(p.190)
The field of SEBD encounters a number of dilemmas
where bullying is concerned, and Lennox (1991) discusses
terms and definitions for children with EBD which
recognise that emotional difficulties usually affect behaviour.
Current definitions of bullying, developed within mainstream
settings, do not address this issue as they often insist that
for the aggressive act to count as bullying, it must be
intended, against someone with less power and then
repeated. When, however, do acts of aggression which
may be commonplace in provisions catering for such
special needs, become acts of bullying?
A case study into the existence and effects of bullying
within a special school for pupils with SEBD
The focus of this article presents case study methods as an
alternative to the existing quantitative methods which
have generally been employed to investigate bullying
within schools.
British Journal of Special Education Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000)
Through the case study of one special school (its structure
and social organisation; the relationships between its
pupils; and the views of pupils, staff and parents) the
harder-to-elicit, ‘more subtle manifestations’ of bullying
were sought. The population studied consisted of 30
secondary age pupils, 20 members of staff and 30 sets of
parents/carers (Torrance, 1998), and the consent of all was
obtained. Five main research questions were explored:
1) Does bullying exist within small schools with high
teacher/pupil ratios and high supervision levels?
2) Is bullying evidenced in the behavioural patterns of
children with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties in a special school ostensibly catering
for their particular needs?
3) What types of bullying take place within the school?
4) In the light of the analysis of data responses to the
above, what interventions might be effective to prevent
future bullying incidents?
5) Is the current knowledge and understanding of
bullying in mainstream schools relevant to policies
and practices in special schools catering for children
with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties?
Quantitative methods, including an analysis of documents,
records and questionnaires, were used to elicit specific
information and to enable the cross-checking of qualitative
data. In contrast, qualitative methods of observation,
interviews and sociometric analysis were used to elicit a
greater depth of insight into the relationships between
people and their social interactions (Wragg, 1994).
Knowledge of the context of the research enabled insights
to be gained into the significance of interactions between
participants (Cohen & Manion, 1994), although such
proximity also necessitated care in minimising bias. The
use of multiple methods or triangulation of techniques
enabled the advantages of each method to be harnessed,
whilst addressing and counteracting their disadvantages,
and enhancing the reliability and validity of research
evidence. The findings have obvious limitations and could
not claim to be representative, but they could have relevance
to a similar school and population group (Bell, 1993).
The use of structured and semi-structured observation
was designed to address some of the potential hazards of
participant observation. Ten semi-structured observations
plus two pilot sessions (all of 10 minutes duration) of tuck
shop queues were carried out. They could be described as
narrative accounts (Robson, 1993) and the intention was
to gain a picture of the climate of the tuck shop queue and
to identify any pupils who were regularly involved in
bullying, as several pupils had suggested that it was a
location which had a high level of bullying. Ten structured
observations with two pilot sessions at playtimes were
also planned, each lasting from 10 to 15 minutes.
Observations were, to a large extent, used to validate data
collected by other methods such as questionnaires. A
questionnaire survey (eliciting facts, behaviour, beliefs
and attitudes, Robson, 1993) was carried out with the
staff of the school. Participants were asked to identify
17
themselves in order to cross-check information from class
teachers and open and closed items were used. Whereas
an open item was often used to elicit information about a
closed item, closed items elicited structured responses
which enabled them to be quantified. Questions were
worded to avoid ambiguity, imprecision or assumption,
and double, leading and presuming questions were
avoided. The layout was clear, varied and attractive in
order to encourage completion and to avoid a repetitive
response pattern. Questionnaires alone could not have
provided the data required to understand the issues of
bullying within the case study school, although they
proved a useful tool for the purpose for which they were
designed.
Structured interviews were carried out to elicit the experiences
and views of pupils and parents/carers, and to enable
information from other sources and emerging hypotheses
to be tested (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Twenty-nine pupils
and 21 parents/carers were interviewed for approximately
20 minutes each, using a structured schedule devised for
each sample group, after much care and redrafting of the
initial questions and structure. With this particular sample
group, the nature of pupils’ and some parents’/carers’
special educational needs had also to be considered: shorter
attention spans; learning difficulties; poor listening and
communication skills; and low interest and high fatigue
levels.
Researchers in other studies (Whitney & Smith, 1993)
have offered a definition, or vignette, of bullying in order
to establish a common understanding and to enable a
closer comparison of responses. Other researchers have
objected to this practice and claim that it introduces
researcher bias, pre-defines and unduly influences
responses, or excludes forms of aggression exhibited by
different (gender) groups (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Both
interview schedules incorporated a question near the
beginning, asking respondents themselves to define
bullying, which served two purposes. Firstly, it was
relevant to ascertain which behaviours respondents
classified as ‘bullying’. Secondly, it allowed the
researcher to ensure that respondents had a level of
contextual understanding which would enable them to
answer the remaining questions.
Parents were interviewed by phone as this was a relatively
cost-effective and flexible method and allowed the
researcher to use time outside school hours and provided
relatively easy access. The main drawbacks were the lack
of both non-verbal clues from the participants and
non-verbal encouragement from the interviewer. It also
proved difficult to maintain a flow of conversation whilst
recording responses.
Sociometric analysis was used with the pupils involved in
bullying incidents (recorded in the school’s bullying
incident logs) and pupils were directly asked which of
their peers they would choose to play or work with, and
which they would not. This data gathering process took
place at the end of each of the four terms, within one
18 British Journal of Special Education
academic year, and sociogrammes were constructed
mapping the direction of bullying, positive and negative
feelings. Sociometric analysis was considered valuable
for gaining insights into the emotional structure of the
pupils’ relationships (Hopkins, 1985). Smith and Thompson
(1991) claim that:
‘Many (though not all) victims are sociometrically
rejected (eg, Perry, Kusel & Perry, 1988), and
questionnaire responses show that victims feel they
lack friends and peer support in the playground.’
(p.8)
This method provides a snapshot of relationships at any
one time, although it is not reliable in isolation from
evidence gathered from other sources.
The school’s bullying incident logs also provided
documentary data about the location of bullying incidents,
the victim’s group, the bully’s group, the type of bullying,
the action taken, and the number of bullies involved.
Additional documents in the form of the school’s bullying
policy and social skills programme gave information
which deepened the researcher’s understanding of the
context. The form completed for each pupil at the time of
transfer to the special school was accessed through the
pupil’s personal records in order to refer to the information
contained within its behaviour rating scale. The main
reason for using this information was to evidence whether
teachers in mainstream schools had identified bullying
behaviours prior to pupils enrolling in School X. Lee
(1993) raises concerns about the time-lag between the
writing and the analysis of reports; a situation which may
have obvious implications for the accurate reporting of
complex human behaviours. Other issues concerning the
referral form are the processes, motives and intentions
behind moving a pupil into special education, together
with the pressures of resources and the criteria for
placements. They call into question the reliability and
validity of documents of this kind as a main source of
data.
A discussion of case study methods and findings
A critique of the present research (Torrance, 1998)
acknowledges that there are a number of difficulties in
conducting research into a sensitive subject such as bullying
within SEBD special schools, and that participant bias
needs to be carefully considered. Pupils, parents and staff
could exhibit bias by trying to co-operate with the
researcher and to provide ‘the right answers’. Pupils, fearing
recrimination from their peers, could withhold information
and volunteer a completely false picture of the nature of
bullying within the school. Whitney and Smith (1993)
suggest that while interviews can gain ‘rich insights’
they may be too threatening a method for investigating
bullying.
Participant observation carries many caveats, and Lee
(1993) issues a warning about ‘appreciative understanding’
which seems entirely relevant to an exploration of
bullying:
Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000)
 ‘… one must often apparently assent to what is going
on in the setting in order simply to remain in it…
such compromises inevitably smack of hypocrisy…
a stance which is openly hostile to those studied,
potentially blocks the possibility of empathy.’
(p.137)
The need to ask participants to identify individuals in
order to enable the triangulation of techniques carries
with it many implications for safeguarding confidentiality
and preventing bias. With both pupil interviews and
sociometric analysis, there is the issue of using children as
witnesses. Some would call into question the reliability
and therefore validity of such a method. Alderson (1995)
offers the view that:
‘… even pre-school children can be reliable witnesses
and can recall and reconstruct central events accurately,
when they are carefully questioned, treated considerately,
and have a “support person” present.’
(p.75)
The issue of consent is also significant. Pupil, staff and
parent participants’ consent was obtained for all overt
case study methods. Care was taken to ensure that all
those involved knew what the purpose of the investigation
was, why their views were being sought, that anonymity
would be assured, that there was no obligation to
participate and that they could opt out at any point (Lee
1993). To ensure that the pupils’ rights were protected,
parental permission was sought. For observational
research, however, consent was only obtained from the
headteacher of the school, whose role became invaluable
in the protection of potential vulnerabilities connected
with this particular sample group; in gaining consent for
the specifics of the project; in approving all data collection
methods; and in gaining consent for the accessing of
confidential documents.
When designing the research, protecting the identity of
participants needs to be addressed and a balance between
ethical and practical considerations has to be struck. In
this study, the numbering of pupils and references to
parents/carers via their children’s numbers was adopted.
Concern was, however, raised by the staff of the school
about the possible identification of pupils and staff in a
detailed study of a small school. Robson (1993) presents
the issue succinctly:
‘You have both an interest in, and a responsibility
for, ensuring that the results of your study get into
the “public domain”… the basic stance usually
adopted is to take reasonable precautions to ensure
anonymity, and then publish.’
(p.411)
Despite taking great care in the design of the methods and
obtaining informed consent from participants, the
findings and critique of the findings was unacceptable to
some members of School X’s staff. Although there was
‘good practice’ which included strategies used to address
British Journal of Special Education Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000)
bullying, findings suggested that more could and should
be done. On reflection, the very difficult issues addressed in
the study could have made staff feel that they were being
blamed when they were working in an extremely difficult
sector of education. Inevitably staff feel responsible even
for ‘very challenging behaviours’. Findings of bullying in
such contexts can be interpreted as unfair criticism, and
staff and individuals undertaking research in their own
teaching contexts need to be aware of such issues and
should be able to discuss ways of addressing findings
(which some might find unpalatable) with colleagues. As
it would appear from a review of the literature that bullying
takes place within all schools, it would be unrealistic to
expect that any investigation would find no evidence of
bullying. There may, however, be a deeper issue (revealed
by such explorations): upsetting the status quo. The present
findings revealed that:
• bullying did exist within a small school with high
teacher/pupil ratios and high levels of supervision;
• bullying was evidenced in the behavioural patterns of
children with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties in a special school ostensibly catering for
their particular needs;
• the full range of bullying took place throughout the
studied school although there was a higher proportion
of physical incidents than existing mainstream
research would have indicated;
• there appeared to be a significant level of bullying
and bullying appeared to be perceived by pupils,
staff and parents as a critical issue;
• bully/victim roles appeared to be attributed/allocated
to specific children within an established pecking
order, although all pupils appeared to bully and be
bullied at some point, in their time in school;
• existing intervention strategies were not effective in
addressing the nature and extent of bullying within the
case study school and further measures were needed;
• the current knowledge and understanding of bullying
in mainstream schools does not offer the insights
required to address the complex issues found within
SEBD settings.
It is possible that a researcher, by challenging the perception
that special schools catering for pupils with social, emotional
and behavioural difficulties are better able to address
bullying than mainstream schools, risks threatening the
status quo of a whole range of professionals. It is important,
therefore, to consider whether or not:
• children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties,
who appear too disruptive for the mainstream setting,
can be better placed in special education;
• special schools can provide a level of care and expertise
which it is difficult for mainstream schools to maintain;
• the uncovering of significant levels of bullying, within
special school SEBD provision, raises a deeper issue,
‘Can children with established bullying behaviours
address those behaviours when surrounded by peer
role models who also have established bullying
behaviours?’
19
Finally, the nature of school studied and its pupils’ special
educational needs makes the sample atypical. It is, therefore,
unrepresentative and the research findings should not be
generalised. Nevertheless, Robson (1993) points out that
(for qualitative research) credibility, transferability,
dependability and confirmability are alternatives to the
internal and external validity (generalisability), reliability
and objectivity necessary for quantitative research.
Conclusion
An extensive review of the literature by the present author
revealed that much research had been carried out to
establish the prevalence of bullying within British schools
and that the focus had more recently been directed
towards finding lasting solutions to the problem.
Nevertheless, as many intervention strategies have not
fulfilled the expectations of researchers and practitioners
and there is still a lack of current qualitative research into
bullying, case studies should be used to explore the social
interactions, within schools where bullying occurs, in
order to identify potential mechanisms for effective
intervention.
References
Ahmad, Y. & Smith, P. K. (1990) ‘Behavioural measure:
bullying in schools’, Newsletter of the Association
for Child Psychology and Psychiatry. July.
Ahmad, Y., Whitney, I. & Smith, P. K. (1991) ‘A survey
service for schools on bully/victim problems’, in
P. K. Smith & D. A. Thompson (eds.) Practical
Approaches to Bullying. London: David Fulton.
Alderson, P. (1995) Listening to Children: Children,
Ethics and Social Research. Essex: Barnardos.
Bell, J. (1993) Doing Your Research Project: a Guide
for First-Time Researchers in Education and Social
Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Boulton, M. J. (1995) ‘Playground behaviour and peer
interaction patterns of primary school boys classified
as bullies, victims and not-involved’, British Journal
of Educational Psychology. 65, 165-177.
Branwhite, T. (1994) ‘Bullying and student distress:
beneath the tip of the iceberg’, Educational
Psychology. 14 (1), 59-70.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in
Education. London: Routledge.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995) ‘Relational
aggression, gender and social-psychological
adjustment’, Child Development. 66, 710-722.
Cullingford, C. & Morrison, J. (1995) ‘Bullying as a
formative influence: the relationship between the
experience of school and criminality’, British
Educational Research Journal. 21 (5), 547-560.
Department of Education and Science (1989)
Discipline in Schools (The Elton Report).
London: HMSO.
Duin, N. (1997) Bullying: a Survival Guide (Published
to accompany ‘Bully’). London: BBC Learning
Support.
Elliott, M. (1992) Bullying: a Practical Guide to Coping
for Schools. Harlow: Longman.
20 British Journal of Special Education
Schools can use a variety of intervention strategies,
including punishment; a whole school policy approach;
curriculum work; playground interventions; the ‘no
blame’ or ‘shared/common concern’ method; the quality
circle; and the bully court. Whichever are chosen, the
whole school community needs to become actively
involved. If the above, or alternative intervention strategies,
are fully developed within special schools catering for
SEBD then, in this age of integration and social inclusion,
the whole range of educational provision would be
enhanced. And if it is feasible for pupils with SEBD to
alter behaviour patterns in which bullying is established,
pupils with less challenging behaviours could do the same.
Researchers and practitioners are offered the challenge:
employ case studies to gain insights into bullying
behaviours within special schools; use those insights to
develop effective intervention strategies; publish findings
in a way which protects the identity of participants but
enables school communities to benefit. Small-scale, in-depth,
studies may not attract fame and fortune but they are essential
if practitioners are to be equipped to deal with bullying.
Gibbs, S. & Stiker, R. (eds.) (1996) ‘Perspectives of
children and young people’, BPS Educational and
Child Psychology. 13 (2), 14-22.
Hill, J. (1995) ‘Entering the unknown’, in P. Clough &
L. Barton (eds.) Making Difficulties: Research and
the Construction of SEN. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd.
Hopkins, D. (1985) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom
Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jenner, S. & Greetham, C. (1995) ‘Forming a whole-school
anti-bullying policy’, Pastoral Care. September, 6-13.
Johnstone, M., Munn, P. & Edwards, L. (1991) Action
against Bullying: a Support Pack for Schools.
Edinburgh: SCRE/SOED.
La Fontaine, J. (1991) Bullying: the Child’s View.
London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Lee, R. M. (1993) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics.
London: SAGE Publications.
Lennox, D. (1991) ‘See Me after School’: Understanding
and Helping Children with Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties. London: David Fulton.
Mellor, A. (1995) ‘Which Way Now?’ (a Progress Report
on Action against Bullying in Scottish Schools).
Edinburgh: The Scottish Council for Research in
Education.
Nabuzoka, D., Whitney, I., Smith, P. & Thompson, D.
(1993) in D. Tattum (ed.) Understanding and
Managing Bullying. Oxford: Heinemann School
Management.
Olweus, D. (1996) ‘Bully/victim problems in school’,
Prospects. June, XXVI (2), 331-359.
O’Moore, A. M. (1995) ‘Bullying behaviour in children
and adolescents in Ireland’, Children and Society. 9
(2), 54-72.
Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J. & Perry, L. C. (1988) ‘Victims of
peer aggression’, Developmental Psychology. 24, 807-814.
Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000)
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research: a Resource for
Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Sharp, S. (1996) ‘The role of peers in tackling bullying
in schools’, Educational Psychology in Practice. 11
(4), 17-22.
Siann, G., Callaghan, M., Glissov, P., Lockhart, R. &
Rawson, L. (1994) ‘“Who gets bullied?”: The effects
of school, gender and ethnic group’, Educational
Research. 36 (2), 123-134.
Slee, P. T. (1995) ‘Bullying: health concerns of
Australian secondary school students’, International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 5, 215-224.
Smith, P. K. & Thompson, D. A. (1991) (eds.) Practical
Approaches to Bullying. London: David Fulton.
Tattum, D. & Herbert, G. (1990) Bullying: a Positive
Response (Advice for Parents, Governors and Staff
in Schools). Cardiff: SGIHE.
Torrance, D. A. (1998) Bullying and children with
special educational needs. Unpublished M.Ed.
dissertation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Train, A. (1995) The Bullying Problem: How to
Deal with Difficult Children. London: Souvenir
Press.
Whitney, I. & Smith, P. K. (1993) ‘A survey of the
nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and
secondary schools’, Educational Research. 35 (1),
3-25.
Wragg, E. C. (1994) An Introduction to Classroom
Observation. London: Routledge.
Young, S. (1998) ‘The support group approach to
bullying in schools’, Educational Psychology in
Practice. 4 (1), 32-39.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Address for correspondence
Deirdre A. Torrance
9a Bonnington Terrace
Edinburgh EH6 4PB
Accepted for publication: November 1999

David Fulton Publishers

Dyslexia and Information & Perspectives on Behaviour New Labour’s Policies
Communications Technology ASECOND
Practical Guide to Interventions for Teachers
EDITION
for Schools
A Guide for Teachers and Parents Harry Ayers, Don Clarke and Anne Murray Raising the Standard
Anita Keates c. £14.00 • Paperback • c.128 A4 pages Edited by Jim Docking
c. £13.00 • Paperback • c.96 A4 pages 1-85346-672-7 • February 2000 c. £16.00 • Paperback • c.224 pages
1-85346-651-4 • January 2000 1-85346-611-5 • February 2000

Dyspraxia in the Early Years Information and The Contribution of Parents

Identifying and Supporting Children with Communications Technology to School Effectiveness
Movement Difficulties
Christine Macintyre
for All Edited by Sheila Wolfendale and John Bastiani
c. £13.00 • Paperback • 128 pages Colin Hardy c. £15.00 • Paperback • c.160 pages
1-85346-677-8 • January 1999 c. £15.00 • Paperback • 96 A4 pages 1-85346-633-6 • February 2000
1-85346-673-5 • February 2000

Implementing the Young Readers and

Understanding their Books
National Numeracy Strategy Developmental Dyspraxia
Suggestions and Strategies for Using Texts in the
for Pupils with A Textbook for Students and Professionals Literacy Hour
Madeleine Portwood Gervase Phinn
Learning Difficulties c. £16.00 • Paperback • c.208 pages c. £14.00 • Paperback • 128 pages
Access to the Daily Mathematics Lesson 1-85346-574-7 • February 2000 1-85346-681-6 • February 2000
Ann Berger, Denise Morris and Jane Portman
c. £14.00 • Paperback • c.144 A4 pages
1-85346-664-6 • February 2000

To order any of these titles or to request a current catalogue contact us at the address below or see your local bookseller.
David Fulton Publishers, Ormond House, 26-27 Boswell Street, London WC1N 3JD
Tel: 020 7 405 5606 Fax: 020 7 831 4840 E-mail: orders@fultonbooks.co.uk

British Journal of Special Education Volume 27, No. 1 (March 2000) 21