This is a secondary school for students age 11-19 years with severe/profound learning disabilities, many of whom exhibit persistent and disruptive behaviours. Thus there is a `qualitative' difference between the students and their needs in this school and those normally found in mainstream secondary schools. This had implications for the nature of the project implemented in the school, although in general terms it is possible to distinguish three broad headings which were evident in the bids of the other schools:

A. To improve the quality of education for those students presenting 'persistent challenging and disruptive behaviours'

B. To enhance parents' knowledge and understanding of challenging behaviour and develop partnerships between the school, parents and Social Services division in working with these students.

The school largely met this objective. The first strategy was to develop the skills of teachers, support staff, paramedical and peripatetic staff in managing challenging behaviour. An INSET training course was held on a Friday and Saturday involving all teaching and support staff, the mid-day assistants and the School Nurse. (It was not feasible to include paramedical or peripatetic staffing this.)

The course was run by Lucille Bennett from BILD (British Institute for Learning Disabilities) and was extremely successful. It was a practical course involving demonstrations of skills which staff could practice (e.g. restraint, dealing with violence). The immediate feedback was very good and staff said they felt more confident in what they did. The Head described the course as a `brilliant springboard' for informing and enskilling staff She could cite many examples where practices had changed and behaviour programmes had become much more individualised, tailored to meet individual needs. Staff were more able to relate to individuals in a coherent way.

The second part of this objective was to improve the whole school implementation of the Behaviour Management Policy. One result of the Training Course was that the Policy itself was revisited and some specific aspects were revised. In particular staff revised many of the behaviour management programmes which had been drawn up for students. They also devised a list of procedures to determine what is permissible in the light of Care and Control policies. There have been many examples where they have introduced strategies from the course where there is more consistency in implementation (e.g. of two-person handling techniques) as a result of greater understanding of the methodologies and confidence in practice and skills.

An unanticipated outcome was that this new confidence in managing behaviour somehow "gave permission" to re-examine the curriculum. Like many such schools, there is always pressure to deliver the National Curriculum and a `broad, balanced' curriculum similar to that in mainstream schools. The curriculum was revisited in terms of evaluating the extent to which it related to the nature of a pupil's behaviour. Previously staff had felt (reinforced by OFSTED) under pressure to provide a National Curriculum-based curriculum. They now felt that there was a need to provide experiences led by a student's needs. This renewed faith in themselves as professionals and the Head believed this unexpected outcome has been beneficial in improving the quality of education the school provides.

She also believes that all the performance indicators described in the bid have been met:

• staff have improved confidence and skills in managing challenging behaviour (based on statements from staff and her observations of them in situations where they are dealing with challenging behaviour)
• reduced incidence of aggressive/violent behaviour by pupils (evident from IEPs, students' records)
• increased involvement of such students across the curriculum (less evidence of withdrawal for 1 to 1 management, observations of participation; students' records)
• whole school behaviour management policy is familiar to and procedures implemented by all staff (all staff, including paramedical and peripatetic staff, have been involved in reviewing the policy; the headteacher has observed consistent management practices).

A training day was run for parents of students of this school and Valley School (the primary feeder). Sixteen parents were involved. Originally it had been intended to involve Social Services, but in fact none attended. The Head now believes that this might have been a good thing as maybe parents would not wish to have Social Services workers there and would prefer to be only with other parents.

The training was again done by Lucille Bennett and was specifically on how to understand and deal with challenging behaviour.

The day was positively evaluated by parents in terms of increasing knowledge and skills. The school staff provided creche facilities for their children with challenging behaviours in order to enable them to attend. Under the project's funding, the school was able to pay classroom assistants for giving up their time to do this.

Overall the project has proved invaluable for enskilling staff, improving the management of challenging behaviour. Although the training course was expensive, it was the most effective training they had ever experienced. Because all staff were involved, behaviours are handled more consistently and there is a high level of co- operation. Thus, despite being a "one-off' project, the effects of the training will be long-lasting.