The school had, for several years, operated what they termed `a pro-active counselling scheme', and sought to use the GEST funding to extend this.

The aim of the scheme was to identify that relatively small group of students who might otherwise be excluded or placed within an extraction system as a result of disruptive behaviour. Funding was therefore used to release Heads of Year to dedicate time to work with a small number of these pupils.

Each Head of Year (Years 7-11 inclusive) identified a number of students whom they believed 'might be excluded' ('at risk' because of recorded incidents of unacceptable behaviour) in the future.

They arranged meetings with these students, usually of about a half hour duration, on a 2-3 weekly cycle. The half hour was a one-to-one advisory/counselling/supportive session during which the tutor and student reviewed the intervening period, talked through any reports in the Incident Book and discussed how to improve behaviour and self presentation.

Because students were withdrawn from lessons, they were withdrawn from different subjects over the 2-3 week period. Staff were very supportive of this approach, particularly because they felt that they were being supported by the SMT in their teaching of students with `notorious' reputations for disruptive behaviours.

The school's bid proposed the following criteria:

l. A reduction in the disruption and extraction, of the targeted students, from lessons

2. Reduction in short term exclusions.

The school is able to produce evidence that there were very few exclusions of the targeted pupils and there were fewer recorded incidents of misbehaviour in the Incident Book.

Moreover, some of the pupils 1eft the group and were replaced by others as there became less apparent need for support. Some students (as might be expected) required more supervision than others. `Supervision' was supportive rather than admonitory in nature.

Although there is a clear record available of any noteworthy misbehaviour in the Incident Book, notes made during the supportive/extraction sessions were at an informal level and only passed to the Project Director if considered crucial and the fact that these meetings were considered private and supportive rather than part of a formal, recorded system, might well have contributed to students' (apparently) willing participation in the sessions.

However, the school's own appraisal of the system has included whether or not the system should have been more formalised. A further question staff ask clearly relates to the issue of identification: how do we identify `at risk' pupils? This is a long-debated question. There is, of course, always the problem of selecting criteria to `predict' pupils at risk. This issue is neither unique to this school nor the Stockport project. It may well be argued that, although this style of intervention ensures participant students are successfully monitored in school it does not affect overall exclusion figures. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge the professional judgement of teachers in identifying pupils `at risk' and therefore recognise and celebrate the success of measures which integrate them into a school.

The school has begun to establish a database and to draw up a Behaviour Assessment Record. This development will continue after the project year, and should help to refine the basis for identification of pupils `at risk' of behaving in ways leading to exclusion.

The current staffing arrangements for supporting pupils cannot continue in 1998-1999 because of lack of funding. Nevertheless, the school will seek to retain the principle underlying the approach, and about 20 staff are likely to take responsibility for 1 or 2 (maximum 3) students believed to be `at risk of exclusion', on a voluntary basis, using personal non-contact time. They will provide similar `low-key' supportive sessions to be used in the project.

Whilst this demonstrates a commitment to the pupils and provides evidence that staff believe the project has been successful, it cannot be seen as a satisfactory measure as it appears dependent not only on staff good-will, but also susceptible to other calls on staff time.

The school considers how it might evaluate the success of the 1998-9 project with a view to institutionalising any successful measures.

This school articulated its particular needs and evaluation procedures readily and expressed particular appreciation of the opportunity to develop and manage its own strategy to meet its own, specific problems in this area.

Of major significance had been that the project afforded an opportunity for teachers to spend `quality' time with students which could be both intensive and supportive. Staff believed that offering a planned time slot meant that pupils saw they were valued and this was particularly significant for students who `are on the margins'. The Project Director emphasised that many have become `model students' and matured in ways which exceeded expectations.

Overall the school believe that the project was highly successful. There was an expressed wish that any future local initiatives in EBD would operate within the same principle of giving a degree of autonomy to schools to determine their own needs and preferred strategies as schools differ considerably in terms both of their pupils and their awareness and knowledge of managing behaviour. The staff at this school are all very aware of the major issues in managing emotional and behavioural difficulties and there is strong staff support for any strategies to prevent or manage disruption.