« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
8 CONCLUSIONS
In this section we summarise our findings and discuss some of the key themes and issues arising from the findings. Finally we identify and consider the implications.
8.1 How Restorative Practices developed in the pilot project in Scotland
In the preceding chapters we have outlined the development of the pilot project, as it emerged in varying forms in the different LAs. The three LAs and indeed all the schools developed their pilot projects differently; however over time they began to develop shared values and practices. The key authority staff and some key school staff met regularly with the Scottish Executive and the evaluation team and discussed their ideas. In addition staff from all three LAs participated in training from some of the same key providers and had been involved in joint seminars. The shared experiences of developing practice moved many staff towards a realization of the importance of developing whole school continua of practice and of staff development for colleagues .
All three LAs saw RPs in education as broader and rather different from the approach in the adult and juvenile justice systems. They all provided and supported training, particularly for primary schools, that took a broad whole-school, preventive approach to RP, rather than focussing solely on formal conferencing where things had gone wrong or harm had been caused. A small number of secondary schools also saw this as the way to begin, although most took the narrower approach initially. All three LAs saw RPs as compatible with other developments locally, particularly those associated with BBBL and with social skills and cognitive reasoning curricula. In the early days there was an emphasis that this was just one more tool in the tool-box; another strategy for schools to use when necessary. However there was a move within the two years to the wider view that RP could become a broad framework of values, strategies, practices and skills and that some other initiatives would fit successfully into this framework but that others might not. (See below for discussion of approaches such as assertive discipline).
We did find a wide range of quite different practices in schools, rather varied use of terminology and differing levels of success in achieving the desired outcomes identified by schools and authorities. It is clear that it is easier to demonstrate school change in primary schools than in the larger and more challenging secondary context, with its historic focus on subject than rather on children. The recognition by the Scottish Executive that developing initiatives like this takes considerable time, and their continued funding for a further two years, was welcomed by the LAs and schools and is in accord with our findings over the two years of this study.
Over the two years it seemed that the pilot authorities and schools developed a shared and distinctively Scottish approach to Restorative Practices. This approach differs from that in operation elsewhere, in that its theoretical underpinnings derive more from humanistic/person-centred psychology, cognitive behavioural approaches, the 'social model' and sociological perspectives on social and educational processes that underpin other social and educational interventions with children in Scotland. This is compatible also with the broad functional approach to Additional Support for Learning in Scotland.
The educational approach in the Scottish context was seen to be different from Restorative Justice ( RJ) in the community in that RJ is used with children and young people who have offended. The latter focuses on offenders and individual actions by using Restorative Cautioning and/or Conferencing and does not have the broader preventive focus of educational approaches. In Justice, restorative approaches are developed by professionals working exclusively with such young people, whereas, in education, the whole school community -managers, teachers, janitors, classroom assistant and pupils - are likely to be involved. In Scotland there has limited use of external facilitators, but rather, a commitment to the training and skills development of school staff and pupils.
So RPs in the pilot authorities can be seen as a set of values, practices and skills that have developed rather differently in different authorities and schools but can be seen to share many common features. As we describe below, in each authority schools developed practices from the continuum of Practices, some as part of a wide approach, others more narrowly. In all cases there was an intention to promote practices in school that would restore relationships where there had been harm and/or conflict, and in many schools also a development of a broader educative, whole school approach that was about promoting good relationships and preventing harm.
This developing Scottish educational model of RP is broadly focussed, encompassing prevention, response and intervention and, sometimes, reparation. There is an emphasis on the whole school community - RPs are seen to be for all staff and pupils and not just for those who have broken the rules or caused conflict or harm. This is wider than the approach of Restorative Justice. If we accept that schools are complex institutions then there will always be competing ideas, tension and personal disagreements. RPs are seen to offer ways to manage these fairly and positively, to prevent conflict and harm but still allow for the expression of difference. There is an emphasis on local ownership of the development and of the responsibility of those involved to learn the skills and develop the practices.
8.2 What did RP look like?
Practices seen in the pilot schools ranged on a continuum from whole school approaches to those used in more challenging situations or with individual students. They included Restorative ethos building; Curriculum focus on relationship building/conflict prevention; Restorative language and scripts; Restorative enquiry; Restorative conversations; Mediation, shuttle mediation and peer mediation; Circles - checking in and problem-solving circles; Restorative meetings, informal conferences, classroom conferences and mini-conferences; and Formal conferences.
Some of these practices built on existing approaches while other aspects were felt to be 'new' and sometimes more challenging. Most schools, especially but not only the primary schools, commonly explored and implemented RP as a permeating and underpinning set of values; addressing issues related to positive school ethos, climate and language. In secondary schools, aims were likely to be more focused on a particular area of the school or a particular aspect of practice. In a number of secondary schools, senior management decided to focus efforts on pupils in the early stages S1/2.
The findings reveal a breadth and variety of Restorative Practices in these pilot schools. School staff often echoed the views of LA key informants that a low-key, preventative approach was preferred where possible, and where they could take an existing practice and integrate RP with it. These staff talked about specific practices such as conferencing or using Restorative Language or Mediation but they also often talked about the need for a 'restorative approach'. Two primary schools talked about aiming to be 'restorative schools'.
8.3 Were they for everyone or for pupils with challenging behaviour?
The majority of schools eventually recognised the argument for building RPs into a whole school approach, involving all staff. However even when there was a whole school approach, it was still often assumed by some staff that it is most useful in dealing with troubled and troublesome young people. None of the schools, however, see RPs as only about high tariff interventions. Most emphasise ethos, attitudes, relationship building, conflict resolution, and in the primary schools particularly playground focus and mediation. However some, particularly secondary schools, have taken a strategic view of starting small, with a behaviour unit, or with disciplinary procedures and hoping that this will demonstrate the value of the approach to colleagues who may then be willing to become involved and to recognise their value. A number of examples highlighted in this report show that RPs were effective in addressing behavioural issues with some of the most challenging pupils.
8.4 Is it an entirely new approach or were we doing it already?
Both the Scottish Executive and LAs were keen to emphasise that RPs should be seen, not so much as an entirely new approach for innovation stressed schools, but as one that offers a framework within which existing good practice can build and develop. It was seen also to add a new dimension to thinking and practice for Inclusion. There is perhaps as a consequence, some lack of clarity within some schools about the extent to which Restorative Practices were seen to offer a radical new approach or a development of existing good practice.
Many staff in schools already used some of the techniques involved in delivering Restorative Practices but required the opportunity to be further trained, develop and reflect on their skills. The three LAs were keen to find a balance between RPs seeming like another stressful demand, while emphasising that there were distinctive practices and skills and that training and support were vital.
8.5 How were staff trained and supported?
Staff development and training was seen by each of the 3 LAs as a central aspect of effective implementation, and a great deal of thought was put in to finding and developing productive links with international, national and local trainers. However, each LA also developed its own approach to training and had its own priorities within an overall commitment to its importance. They all invested in staff development involving both external, in some cases international trainers and also made extensive use of their own staff at LA and school level for offer cascading development opportunities, throughout the pilot period. Some schools, particularly primary and special schools provided staff development opportunities for all staff, including classroom assistants, playground and office staff and janitors. Others, particularly secondary schools, focussed on key staff and provided opportunities for those expressing interest. All the latter schools however recognised the importance of eventually promoting whole school staff development.
8.6 What are the costs of developing Restorative Practices?
The additional funding of £45,000 per year made available to LAs in the pilot was distributed differently in each authority. Several school managers reported that the budget devolved to them for RP training, staff cover, secondments, resources and equipment did not meet the actual incurred costs. Others valued the additional resource.
The cost of time for training was seen as a particular issue in rural areas with long travelling times and distances. The costs of providing cover, and of finding staff to provide that cover were particular issues noted. The issue of staff time and availability was raised frequently, particularly in secondary schools. These comments chime with those made in other research on support for pupils with difficulties, where secondary subject staff sometimes indicate this is not a priority, and indeed the time involved is a distraction from their real task as subject teachers. There were also examples of successful no-cost implementation, for example where schools used existing in-service time for training and in one primary school where a conflict prevention programme was delivered across the school by using teacher preparation cover imaginatively.
8.7 What is the best way to introduce it?
The evaluation indicated that there was no single 'right way' to introduce RP. All senior managers we interviewed were acutely sensitive to staff stress and innovation fatigue and most stressed the links to existing initiatives as a way of encouraging staff. Some Headteachers in primary schools used the success of RP with children, and its capacity to produce, for example, 'calmer playtimes' to convince resistant staff to think more deeply about the possibilities of RP. A few Headteachers have emphasised the impact that RP has had on attainment levels as well as reduction in discipline referrals or onward referrals to outside agencies. It was also presented sometimes as a support for staff, as well as pupils; this seemed to be helpful.
The appointment of a new Headteacher often provided an injection of the required energy and commitment, but also enabled existing staff to take a new tack, allowing them to acknowledge that things could and should be better. A crucial part of the schools' readiness for RPs was not just recognition that things could be better, but their sense that they had the capacity to make them better. Staff morale was therefore very important. In schools that were successful in implementing RPs, there came from staff and pupils a sense that things were on an upward swing. Forms of school organisation and geography, as well as culture, could have a curtailing effect on the spread of RPs. In some secondary schools in particular, it was difficult to spread RPs beyond Pupil Support or other pockets of interest.
Schools in both disadvantaged and affluent areas were successful. Leadership was central, both from senior managers and key staff. In schools where implementation was most successful, staff and pupils felt valued, and RP was understood as a helpful balance of support and accountability. Where senior managers provided effective leadership of the RP pilot in school this also often enabled other staff to take on leadership roles. For example in some primary schools classroom assistants had significant responsibilities for parts of the initiative. Some Headteachers provided the means for colleagues to disseminate RPs throughout the school community. This was done by creating and enabling RP 'champions' and supporting their work fully throughout the initiative.
Greatest success was achieved where schools had the overall aim of improving school ethos by creating and sustaining positive relationships throughout the school community. Some schools in the pilot group had already embarked upon that enterprise and had been selected by the LA for that very reason. Others moved, over the period of the pilot, from having some quite specific aims to sharing this broader view.
Good staff development experiences, and a clear structure of continuing staff support, were often noted by staff in schools that were making significant progress.
8.8 Will it work with existing discipline systems?
Views about the ease with which RP could be integrated within, or constituted an alternative to, existing disciplinary systems differed from school to school and also within schools. There were a few schools, in the main secondary schools, where RPs were seen as challenging to the disciplinary standards of the school and as incompatible with existing sanctions. In the successful primary schools, some secondary schools and the special school, the disciplinary system was often able to be more flexible and responsive to individual circumstances and contexts and perhaps this explains why issues of compatibility were less often raised and why RPs were seen to add to and be complementary with these.
In a few schools, however key staff were beginning to explore and looking to overcome some incompatibilities with particular approaches to discipline, particularly those associated with ideas of assertive discipline, where rules and procedures emphasise a fixed staff authority at the expense of flexibility and pupil participation.
It was clear from our visits to schools that RP had begun to refocus the perennial questions about discipline and behaviour management, both at primary and secondary levels. They were beginning to redefine discipline more broadly as 'relationship management' rather than as a procedure for dealing with difficult behaviour/disruption. In the most successful schools staff and pupils felt that there had been significant improvements in school discipline.
8.9 Can we still use punishment?
Very often, RP in the early stages of development sat alongside traditional punitive responses rather than being consciously used as an alternative to those approaches. A number of Headteachers in primary and secondary schools emphasised that they were still prepared to exclude pupils and that they saw certain kinds of behaviour, for example, violence, as meriting an immediate exclusion. Two secondary Headteachers advocated abandoning punishment altogether, although the staff survey suggested that not all staff in these schools agreed with them. While most Headteachers stressed the necessity of maintaining the option of disciplinary exclusion, they also envisaged that the use of RP would forestall further conflict and thus would have a positive impact on the amount of punishment used in the school. There were differences between schools on this question, with some schools wishing to maintain the existing stance on disciplinary processes such as exclusion and RP as an adjunct to these processes. Other schools viewed RP as the main way in which to respond to incidents of indiscipline, while reserving the right to exclude if necessary. Although most see RP and punishment as different and compatible approaches to maintaining school discipline, some schools are nonetheless indicating a greatly reduced use of many internal disciplinary sanctions.
A number of secondary schools were 'restoracising' their processes of punishment or exclusion, for example replacing punishment exercises with reflective exercises designed to encourage consideration of harm and promote positive actions for the future. Clearly if these processes are administered in a restorative manner they may be experienced as restorative; however, as with other practices they may equally be experienced as punitive if their purpose within a wider restorative climate is not clear.
However in a small number of secondary schools, individual or small groups of committed staff were attempting to introduce RP into schools that continue to make extensive use of punitive sanctions. Interviews with school staff indicated that some expect school managers to use punitive responses to very challenging behaviour. They may therefore feel sometimes that a restorative response by school managers, is not supportive of staff. This feeling is likely to be more present in secondary schools, where, as discussed earlier, subject teachers are less likely to be themselves involved in the Restorative process. This is further exacerbated when, because of concerns for confidentiality, or sometimes because of lack of clear communication procedures, class or subject staff did not feel that they were informed about outcomes of Restorative interventions.
8.10 Overall conclusion - Did it work?
Our evaluation gathered both qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the stated aims of the schools. These aims varied both in their specificity, focus and scale, with some schools, particularly secondary schools, identifying more limited aims. However the data supports the substantial achievement of these aims in most schools in first two years of the pilot project.
In terms of the broad criteria set by the evaluation team:
- 9 schools (6 primary, 1 special and 2 secondary) were considered to have made significant achievements across the school
- schools (1 primary school and 4 secondary) to have made significant achievements in places
- secondary schools were still in the early stages but showed evidence of achievement
- 1 secondary school had been in a changing situation where other priorities had substantially replaced the Restorative Initiative.
Such developments do take time. Nevertheless the evaluation shows evidence of significant change in the schools studied in the period of the evaluation; in half of the schools there was strong evidence of improved relationships within the school community. Clearly, as argued earlier, this progress has to be seen in the context of the whole range of initiatives, practices and developments in these schools during the evaluation period. Indeed one feature of the successful schools, as we will discuss below, is their willingness to reflect on practice and engage with change.
The evaluation did however indicate that, when introduced with commitment, enthusiasm, leadership and staff development, there was a clear positive impact on relationships in school. This was identifiable through the views and actions of staff and pupils, as well as evident in measurable reduction of playground incidents, discipline referrals, exclusion and use of external behaviour support.
The most successful schools had a climate that was identifiably calmer, pupils were generally more positive about their whole school experience and thought staff to be fair and listen to 'both sides of the story'. Staff in many schools, particularly primary, were comfortable with the language of RP and also identified improvements in staff morale. A few schools had raised attainment and in several there was a decrease in exclusions, in-school discipline referrals and in out of school referrals, although of course not all of these can be attributed solely to the introduction of RPs. There was clear evidence of children developing conflict resolution skills.
RPs have had a major impact on most schools involved in the evaluation. Fourteen schools are assessed as having made significant progress either overall or in parts of the school, and a further three have had some experience of success. The structures of primary schools and the closer, more personal relationships they engender, seem to have made the introduction of RP easier. However, some secondary schools also met with real success.
The evaluation highlighted the length of time and the difficulties involved in changing, particularly secondary school, processes and cultures. A recent report on organizational change (Lownsbrough and O'Leary 2005) suggested that 'There is a tendency to overestimate what can be achieved in the short-term and to underestimate what is possible in the long-term'. Through their own experience of the project and their reflection on the challenges of culture change (Blood and Thorsborne 2005), pilot schools and LAs are developing an understanding that change is indeed a gradual process. Most of the key participants in the pilot project remain strongly committed to the project, continuing to see the possibilities of Restorative Practices as both an effective approach to prevention and intervention in relation to conflict and behavioural difficulties but also as a key to wider institutional and ethos change.
The evaluation indicates that Restorative Practices, as they are developing in the pilot LAs and schools, offer a powerful and effective approach to promoting harmonious relationships in school and to the successful resolution of conflict and harm.
« Previous | Contents | Next »