Introduction
In the field of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), understanding the multifaceted influences on children and young people’s development is crucial for educators, practitioners, and policymakers. This essay explores how external factors shape behavioural, social, and emotional development, drawing on principles from developmental psychology and SEND frameworks. Behavioural development refers to patterns of actions and responses, social development involves interactions with others, and emotional development encompasses the ability to understand and manage feelings (Department for Education, 2015). External factors, as opposed to internal biological ones, arise from the environment and can significantly impact these areas, particularly for children with SEND who may be more vulnerable to such influences.
This essay focuses on two key external factors: socioeconomic status (SES) and family environment. These were selected due to their relevance in SEND contexts, where disparities can exacerbate developmental challenges. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, which posits that development occurs within interconnected environmental systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the discussion will analyse how these factors influence development, supported by evidence from academic sources. The analysis will highlight implications for SEND practice, arguing that addressing these factors through targeted interventions can mitigate negative effects and promote positive outcomes. By examining these influences, the essay aims to provide a sound understanding of developmental principles in SEND, with some critical evaluation of limitations in the evidence base.
Socioeconomic Status as an External Factor
Socioeconomic status (SES), encompassing family income, parental education, and occupation, is a pervasive external factor influencing children and young people’s behavioural, social, and emotional development. In the UK, SES disparities are well-documented, with lower SES often linked to adverse developmental outcomes, particularly among those with SEND (Marmot et al., 2010). For instance, children from low-SES backgrounds may experience chronic stress from financial instability, which can disrupt emotional regulation and lead to heightened anxiety or depression. This is especially relevant in SEND, where emotional difficulties can compound existing needs, such as those associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Behaviourally, low SES can contribute to challenging behaviours, as limited access to resources like nutritious food or safe play areas may result in impulsivity or aggression. Bradley and Corwyn (2002) argue that SES affects cognitive and behavioural outcomes through mediating factors like parental investment and home environment quality. Their review of psychological studies indicates that children in low-SES households often exhibit poorer self-control, partly due to exposure to environmental stressors such as overcrowded living conditions. In a UK context, the Millennium Cohort Study provides evidence that low-SES children are more likely to display behavioural problems by age five, with these issues persisting into adolescence if unaddressed (Kelly et al., 2011). However, this evidence has limitations; it is correlational, meaning causation is not definitively established, and cultural variations in SES measurement can affect applicability.
Socially, SES influences peer interactions and social skills development. Children from higher-SES families typically have greater opportunities for extracurricular activities, fostering social competence through group participation. Conversely, those in low-SES environments may face social isolation, exacerbated by neighbourhood deprivation, leading to difficulties in forming relationships. For young people with SEND, this can intensify feelings of exclusion, as noted in Department for Education reports on inclusive education (Department for Education, 2015). Emotionally, the stigma associated with poverty can undermine self-esteem, with research showing higher rates of emotional disorders in low-SES groups (Reiss, 2013). Indeed, interventions like early years programmes in the UK, such as Sure Start, have demonstrated that boosting family resources can improve emotional resilience, though their long-term efficacy is debated due to funding constraints (Melhuish et al., 2008).
Critically, while SES is a broad factor, its impact is not uniform; protective elements like community support can buffer negative effects. In SEND practice, this underscores the need for holistic assessments that consider SES in individual education plans (IEPs), ensuring tailored support to address behavioural outbursts or social withdrawal. Therefore, SES not only shapes development through resource availability but also highlights systemic inequalities that require policy-level responses.
Family Environment as an External Factor
Family environment, including parenting styles, family structure, and home dynamics, is another critical external factor affecting behavioural, social, and emotional development. Within SEND principles, family plays a pivotal role, as supportive home settings can enhance coping mechanisms for children with disabilities, while dysfunctional ones may amplify challenges (Hastings, 2002). Bronfenbrenner’s theory positions the family as the microsystem, directly influencing daily interactions and emotional security (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, authoritative parenting—characterised by warmth and reasonable boundaries—promotes positive emotional development by modelling empathy and self-regulation.
Behaviourally, inconsistent family environments, such as those marked by conflict or neglect, can lead to disruptive behaviours. Baumrind’s (1991) seminal work on parenting styles illustrates how permissive or authoritarian approaches correlate with higher incidences of behavioural issues, like defiance or withdrawal. In the UK, studies on families of children with SEND reveal that parental stress from caregiving demands can result in less consistent discipline, exacerbating behavioural difficulties (Totsika et al., 2011). This is particularly evident in cases of emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD), where family discord may trigger aggressive responses. However, evidence from longitudinal research suggests that family-based interventions, such as parent training programmes, can mitigate these effects by improving behavioural management skills (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997).
Social development is similarly shaped by family interactions, which serve as the foundation for learning social norms. A nurturing family environment encourages secure attachments, facilitating better peer relationships later on. Conversely, adverse family experiences, like domestic violence, can impair social skills, leading to isolation or bullying involvement. For young people with SEND, this is compounded; research indicates that children with learning disabilities in unstable families often struggle with social integration, increasing vulnerability to mental health issues (Emerson & Hatton, 2007). Emotionally, family environment influences the development of emotional intelligence through modelling. Positive family communication fosters emotional expression, while chaotic homes may lead to suppressed emotions or anxiety. Hastings (2002) highlights that siblings of children with disabilities may experience emotional strain, affecting the family’s overall dynamics.
A critical limitation here is the overemphasis on Western family models in much of the literature, potentially overlooking cultural diversity in UK multicultural societies. Nevertheless, in SEND contexts, family support services, as recommended by the Children and Families Act 2014, can address these influences by providing respite care or counselling. Thus, family environment not only directly moulds development but also interacts with other factors like SES, necessitating integrated approaches in educational planning.
Conclusion
In summary, this essay has examined how socioeconomic status and family environment, as external factors, influence children and young people’s behavioural, social, and emotional development, with particular relevance to SEND. SES affects these areas through resource disparities and stress, while family environment shapes them via parenting and home dynamics. Evidence from sources like Bradley and Corwyn (2002) and Baumrind (1991) supports these influences, though limitations such as correlational data and cultural biases warrant cautious interpretation. The implications for SEND practice are clear: early identification and interventions targeting these factors can foster resilience and better outcomes. Ultimately, a holistic approach, informed by ecological theories, is essential to support vulnerable children, highlighting the need for collaborative efforts between families, educators, and policymakers to address these external influences effectively.
References
- Baumrind, D. (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), pp. 56-95.
- Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp. 371-399.
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
- Department for Education (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education.
- Emerson, E., & Hatton, C. (2007) Mental health of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities in Britain. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(6), pp. 493-499.
- Hastings, R. P. (2002) Parental stress and behaviour problems of children with developmental disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 27(2), pp. 149-160.
- Kelly, Y., et al. (2011) Social and economic predictors of child behaviour problems: Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 96(Suppl 1), A1-A2.
- Marmot, M., et al. (2010) Fair society, healthy lives: The Marmot Review. Institute of Health Equity.
- Melhuish, E., et al. (2008) Effects of fully-established Sure Start Local Programmes on 3-year-old children and their families living in England: A quasi-experimental observational study. The Lancet, 372(9650), pp. 1641-1647.
- Reiss, F. (2013) Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, pp. 24-31.
- Totsika, V., et al. (2011) Behavior problems at 5 years of age and maternal mental health in families of children with autism and intellectual disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(8), pp. 1137-1147.
- Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1997) Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: A comparison of child and parent training programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), pp. 93-109.
