The Solution Oriented School Programme: Drawing on the strengths of staff and pupils to build solutions towards inclusive schools.

Charmian Hobbs

NewcastleUniversity, School of Education, Language and Communication Sciences, Joseph Cowen House, St Thomas Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Geneva, 13-15 September 2006

This paper considers the introduction of the solution oriented school (SOS) programme into two federated schools covering the age ranges 9-12 and 13-19 in Northern England. It discusses the historical and theoretical background to solution oriented approaches, outlines the introduction, implementation and evaluation of the SOS programme and provides a conceptual analysis of the programme drawing on activity theory and sociocultural psychology. It suggests that the SOS programme’s effectiveness lies within its potential for working with the whole school culture and ethos to identify the skills, strength and resource within the school to bring change.

The routes of solution oriented approaches

The historical and theoretical routes of solution oriented approaches are not linear or one-dimensional but a useful starting point lies with the work of Milton Erickson. One of Erickson’s considerable contributions to therapeutic work was his focus on the identification of strengths within individual interaction rather than the diagnosis of particular deficits. He believed that a therapist should utilize whatever behaviour, ideas or attitudes a patient displayed to enable some slight change to happen. This was then often followed by a cascade of further progressive changes. His was a deeply humane view of patients, seeing within them their own creative possibilities to make a positive difference for themselves. Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in developing a theory of communication that highlighted the relativity of ‘language-in-use’ were influential in disseminating Erickson’s ideas. Bateson (1972) emphasised that it is in the subtlety of communicative interactions that shared meanings or misunderstandings develop and therefore the focus of attention for an analyst needs to be on these interactions rather than on an individual’s particular deficiencies.

Both these seminal approaches were profoundly influential in a range of current interactional and systemic orientations to understanding human behaviour, and in particular, in the context of this paper, solution focused brief therapy and solution oriented approaches.

Solution focussed and solution oriented approaches: the differences

Solution focused and solution oriented approaches have much in common; though solution focused approaches are known more widely. Both are underpinned by a social constructionist perspective. From this perspective, knowledge is socially and culturally situated and acquired through social action ( Burr, 1995; Gergen, 1999). Individuals construct different ‘realities’, ‘meanings’ and ‘truths’ depending on the assumptions, expectations, theories, concepts and language to which they are culturally exposed and from which their perspectives are formed. Constructions arise knowingly and unknowingly and influence the actions individuals choose to take. It follows that there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ interpretations, just different ones- all of which may be valid within a ‘constructed’ group, system or culture. In short our beliefs, meanings and ideas are determined by the stories we tell ourselves and each other. Both approaches then advocate the deconstructing of the conventional expert position in favour of the aim of empowering clients to manage their perceived difficulties by drawing on their own strengths and resource. Hence there is a sharing of expertise in which the helper contributes an expertise in the solution focused or oriented approach while respecting the clients own expertise in their knowledge of their own strengths and resource and lived experience. The client is not viewed as damaged, dysfunctional or ill but as a potentially resourceful problem solver.

Solution focussed approaches have been increasingly applied within support services and settings in the US and UK (Miller, Hubble and Duncan, 1996) including within services for young people (Selekman, 1997: Corcoran, 2002: Wheeler, 1995: Franklin et al 2001). Solution focussed counselling approaches have already been found to be applicable to school settings (Rhodes, 1993: Redpath and Harker, 1999: Amjal and Rees, 2001). Much of this focus has been on students, families and teachers experiencing difficulties (Murphy, 1994, Williams, 2000; Franklin et al, 2001; Wagner and Gillies, 2001; King and Kellock, 2002), however it has also achieved more general usage (Cook and Kaffenberger, 2003). The appeal of the solution focused approach is perhaps that it appears to offer an apparently simple set of practical procedures. De Shazer and his team (1985), probably one of the most well known group of practitioners, observed that their clients were able to make changes in their lives following conversations with their therapist about preferred futures. Within their therapeutic sessions these conversations began to outweigh the attention given to the problem. They found that as they explored solutions there was less need to understand the causes of the problem itself. The approach came to be referred to as solution focused and is commonly identified by its application of a standard series of techniques. Although there has been considerable debate between practitioners about the rigidity with which all these techniques are included, the prime focus on solution to the exclusion of talk about the problem is the issue that has perhaps raised most controversy.

One of the generally recognised fundamental principles in solution focused approaches denies the need to understand problems in order to find solution. Korman (1997) takes the view that problem talk actually acts to magnify the extent of a problem and furthermore that the kinds of questions needed to help formulate an understanding of the problem and those needed to be asked in order to help things change are mutually exclusive. It is this focus that represents a key difference between solution focused approaches (at least in their more original formulation) and solution oriented approaches. Bill O’Hanlon, who has developed the solution oriented approach which he calls possibility therapy, elaborates his critique of solution focused approaches,

“ (SF) put such a value on focusing on solutions, they had left out several elements that I found crucial in my therapeutic work. First, there was no significant discussion of the importance of validation of emotions (this has begun to shift very recently). Because the emphasis is so much on "solution talk," sometimes clients have the sense that the therapist is minimizing or not attending to the problem and feel "forced" or "rushed" to come to a solution. In contrast, hearing, acknowledging and validating the client's experience is a major first step in Possibility Therapy, laying the foundation for subsequent work. I learned this long ago from Carl Rogers' work, and never forgot its importance.” (

Some research would support O’Hanlon’s view. Rosenberg (2000) comments on solution focused therapists in their enthusiasm to identify exceptions and facilitate change can unwisely play down or trivialise the client’s experiences of problems and Lee (1997) reports the view based on interviews with clients on the matter that the opportunity to talk about problems is particularly helpful to the solution focused brief therapy process. In particular in relation to work with young people, Sklare (1997) sees problem talk as an opportunity for the pupils to ‘unload’ if necessary. Selekman (1993) identified from his work with adolescents that there is a very strong need for clients to talk about the problem and that they typically do not respond well to solution focussed questioning alone. Murphy and Duncan (1997) present a view that, within a social constructionist paradigm, it is crucial to fully explore a pupil’s perceptions of problem situation if these are to remain central to the process of intervention and that it is necessary in order to appreciate how previous attempts at solution based in alternative discourses may themselves actually have become part of the problem. Stearn and Moore (2001) note that when the pupils concerned were allowed to describe the history of problem incidents as a mark of respect as much as an integral part of the intervention model. Wilson (2005) deemed it essential to include the systematic exploration of the pupil’s perspective in order to obtain any level of commitment to change.

O’Hanlon further critiques the tendency of solution focused approaches to become formulaic

“ One invariably asks certain questions (like "The Miracle Question") and follows certain sequences. While this may be a fine way to learn a new approach, the ultimate effect is often one of rigidity and imposition. While the proponents of the (de Shazer) approach may protest that this is evidence of the approach being done incorrectly, my experience is that a formulaic approach has this built-in risk.” (

De Shazer and Berg (1997) argued that the solution focused model could only be demonstrated to be effective if defined by commonly understood characteristics, which might then be subsequently replicated. This approach more easily allows for research into effectiveness but reduces the flexibility which many practitioners see as its attractiveness. The focus of the work of O’Hanlon is the careful use of language as an important tool to help clients explore and construct their own solutions. This may or may not include typical elements of solution focused approach. The key difference is the emphasis of working with the client from where they are, acknowledging and validating their view alongside offering opportunities and possibilities which they can explore further or reject.

The solution oriented approach then sets out to acknowledge and validate the felt experience and perception of the person with whom the practitioner is working. In so doing the practitioner draws on a range of skills and techniques working from the person’s own starting point and seeks to identify possibilities and opportunities for desired change that the person feels they can bring about from their own skills and resource.

The Solution Oriented School Programme (SOS)

The Solution Oriented School Programme is a whole school approach that offers a framework for supporting staff and pupils in developing high standards of teaching and learning. The programme was developed by Ioan Rees (2005) and colleagues in Scotland and has since been taken up by the Scottish Executive for all authorities in Scotland and by a number of authorities within England and Wales. The framework is set out in Figure 1 below

The solution oriented school programme is structured into 3 interrelated parts:

  • The Core Professional Purpose & Operating Principles

The school staff is asked to consider what they would see as their core professional purpose; in contemporary terms their ‘mission’ statement. The statement is based on a common understanding of what the staff offers itself, its pupils and the community. It provides inspiration and vision and is clear, concise and publicised. Once this is set down , staff identifies what key principles guide their professional practice which would be in line with their core professional purpose and solution oriented thinking.

  • Optimal Conditions

These represent guide points for all staff and pupils for what they would expect to see happening within school if the staff and pupils were putting their core professional purpose and operating principles into practice. They provide a way for auditing current practice and for building on the strength, skills and resource within the school. By looking to establish solution based ways of working, difficulties are less likely to arise.

  • Strength Based Support

The agreed Core Professional Purpose, operating principles and optimal conditions are maintained and supported through ‘Strength based support’ which includes

  • Coaching provided for professional development and in meeting the challenges of day to day work
  • Coaching with adults, pupils and their families to address concerns as they arise
  • Solution oriented meetings to look for solutions to the multiple issues that arise within school life both expected and unexpected.

Coaching for adults or pupils and solution oriented meetings follow a structure that allows for concerns to be voiced and respectfully acknowledged, followed by an exploration of a way forward based on the identified skills and strengths of the participants.

The Solution Oriented Approach to Working

The Solution Oriented Approach sees the major resource with any school as those people working within it. By acknowledging, harnessing and developing staff and pupil competencies and skills, schools can utilise these strengths to bring about positive change for their pupils and for themselves as effective practitioners. Similarly the Solution Oriented Approach seeks to support staff in identifying their own skills, strengths and resources to address the concerns they might bring.

The process emphasises the building of internal school resource so that initial training and development is with a small group of chosen or volunteer facilitators within the school who can go on to train, work alongside and support their colleagues. This is very much in harmony with the theoretical basis of deconstructing the model of the need for schools to consult with and rely on the outside expert.

The programme provides a way of creating a respectful and effective learning environment by acknowledging and valuing the strengths and skills of those working within it both to maintain a solutions focus and mutually support one another.

Introducing the Solution Oriented Programme

A Children’s Services Directorate within the north of England bought the license for the Solution Oriented School programme following training for educational support staff (educational psychologists and behaviour support teachers) within that authority. Two federated schools, consisting of a middle (age 8-12 years) and high (age 13-19 years) approached the lead trainers for the Solution Oriented School Programme in the summer term of 2005. Following an introduction to the programme to the senior management team, the schools opted for the training programme and invited their feeder first school (4-7 years) to join them.

The schools serve pupils coming from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. For the most part, pupils come from the immediate vicinity of the school. The surrounding area has a significant amount of social and economic deprivation and many of the student’s families live in stressful circumstances. The intake is comprehensive with the vast majority being white British. The last Ofsted report (December 2004) for the High School evaluated it as ‘a good effective school providing a very inclusive and supportive environment for its pupils’. The middle school was taken out of ‘special measures’ in June 2005 and as it was then judged to be ‘providing a satisfactory standard of education for its pupils’. In March 2005, the first school was judged to be ‘a good school with some very good features’.

All the schools nominated school facilitators. These included senior staff from all three schools and staff with pastoral alongside curriculum responsibilities. All the facilitators were teaching staff, apart from a member of staff who worked in careers and totalled 14 in all. The training was delivered jointly by the lead solution oriented schools programme trainers within the authority.

Training took place over the autumn term and at the beginning of the spring term 2005-6. It was conducted in a series of 4 half day sessions, beginning with the introduction of key skills (hearing the story, gaoling, competency profiling and constructive feedback) which were then used in key applications (adult and pupil coaching, reflective teams and solution oriented meetings). Facilitators practised the skills and applications between training sessions. The programme was introduced to all the school staff in the middle and high school as a half day session early in 2006. One lead authority trainer and the trained facilitators gave this training. The facilitators then spent a further training session planning for full implementation of the programme, which included a launch to governors and parents. Both the latter took place towards the end of the spring term 2006.

Evaluation took place through interview and questionnaire during the summer term, and informally throughout the training programme. The initial findings are

  • Facilitators joined the training programme with a wide range of skills, which for some included a knowledge of solution focussed approaches. All the facilitators who were able to attend the full training programme became fluent and confident in using the skills and applications. “ I was very nervous of the thought of ‘facilitating’ with staff more experienced than myself until I realised they were more nervous than me!”. The trained facilitators introduced skills and applications to all the staff at the whole school training session. After the training was completed it was more difficult to consistently maintain and use skills. A general request was for “ more practical experience of it for staff”
  • It was possible to quickly introduce applications into the working life of the school. In particular the solution oriented meeting approach was used for leadership team meetings, management meetings, problem solving meetings and reintegration meetings with pupils who had been excluded from school. The commentary from this approach was a greater efficiency in planning, (The) “ more structured meetings, making it easier for me to focus”. In particular parents stated their appreciation of the focus on a positive way forward.
  • The approach was used widely with students who experienced difficulties and found to be helpful. (It )“ makes pupils feel that they are capable of achievement in some way. (It)may help boost their self esteem/confidence”.

The main limitations were reported as