Specialist Teaching Service

For outside agencies, particularly when first working with this approach, it is important to pick ‘winners’ at the outset. Schools which take issues of Personal and Social Education seriously and which actively promote an ethos of community and mutual support are obviously more likely to be sympathetic to both the purpose and the process. We found it helpful to prepare a brief outline of the origins, purpose and practicalities of the approach. (See Guideline 1).

A hierarchy of co-operation and consent is required in order to successfully establish and run a circle. In order to reduce the risk of needlessly investing time and, the danger of raising and dashing hopes, we would suggest the following sequence of negotiation:

We consider that a personal approach to the parents of the focus child is essential. They need to know clearly what is entailed and to have some realistic idea of possible outcomes: in this respect the term ‘circle of friends’ is rather misleading in implying that friendships can simply be created by seeking volunteers in this fashion. With hindsight we feel it would have been useful to provide a brief information sheet. (See Guideline 2)

In our particular project we also asked parents whether or not their children knew of their own diagnosis, whether this was known in the community or school and, if so, whether this label could be mentioned in any discussions. Our experience suggested that it was perfectly possible to run a ‘circle’ without the diagnostic label. In all cases the peer group demonstrated considerable perception about the nature of the child’s difficulties.

A circle can only be set up and run with the free and informed consent of the focus child. This is an easy principle to state but careful (and subjective) judgement is required in practice. The youngster is dependent on the information provided by the adult and this has to be done in a way which makes it as accessible as possible to the particular youngster. Ready agreement by the child may be based on fantasy about what the circle can offer and what the experience will feel like. Equally, refusal to participate may be based on similar grounds or may be a momentary reaction to the prospect of missing a lunchtime.

Particularly in view of the involvement of outside agencies we feel it necessary to provide information to the parents of volunteers and to seek their consent. After discussion with Headteachers it was agreed that we should operate on the basis of what we termed ‘negative consent’. A standard letter was sent to the parents of volunteers giving some background information and inviting them to contact the Headteacher with any concerns or questions: consent was presumed if the school did not hear from the parents. (See Guideline 3)

Our agenda for the first meeting was closely based on that outlined by Newton et al (1996). Whilst the first meeting is an essential first step in the process of establishing a circle we also came to recognise that it was a powerful and valuable activity in its own right. (See Guidelines 4 and 5).

It was our clear impression that the first session with the whole class had the potential for making a major impact on peer attitudes to the focus child, regardless of the subsequent establishment of a circle. (Please see the Guideline 4 for an outline to this session.) It was felt that a full hour was necessary to get best value from this session and that some suspension of the usual adult-pupil relationship was required. In this situation it was essential for the adult to establish a spirit of shared responsibility, to emphasise that the class were being invited to help (both the focus child and the adult) and to respect the feelings and suggestions expressed.

Consistently classes showed great insight and creativity in identifying the positive attributes and behaviours of the focus child. Almost always the list was longer and more diverse than might have been predicted and the process of ‘giving credit’ in this way also seemed to facilitate the more difficult task of discussing the focus child's difficulties. Our fear that in some circumstances a class might only provide us with negative aspects was never realised.

Though we approached this stage with apprehension the outcomes were invariably positive. The key to the process seemed to be the adult's concern to seek information openly, fairly, and non-judgementally. The most obvious trap to guard against was that of being drawn into an alliance with the class, based on shared disapproval/indignation, so appearing to team up against the focus child.

In practice the class members showed remarkable perceptiveness in identifying the focus children's difficulties (often recognising core autistic features) and significantly improved acceptance and understanding of the focus child. The important ingredients in bringing about these changes seemed to be as follows:-

Our favoured method for requesting volunteers in confidence was to give the whole class slips of paper and ask them to write their name on this with a ‘yes’ if they were interested in volunteering or a ‘no’ if they were not. This happened at the end of the whole class talk and catches the enthusiasm built up during the session. It was explained, at this point, that there would probably be too many volunteers as only 6-8 were required, but that those who were not initially involved would be placed on a reserve list. It was also stressed that if a volunteer did not wish to continue being a member of the ‘circle’ then they could easily leave.

The responsibility for selecting the 6-8 volunteers who would become members of the ‘circle’ was left with school staff. However, we did suggest that the group was balanced between children who were very able/and those who had some difficulties.