The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

6 ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE 18 SCHOOLS

In this chapter we discuss some of the quantitative data gathered in the evaluation, including the staff and pupils surveys and school statistical information on disadvantage (Free School Meals Entitlement: FME) and disciplinary exclusion. We then synthesise this data with the qualitative findings outlined in Chapter 5 in order to develop a clear, summative view of overall achievements. We offer a set of indicators against which 'achievements' in this context can be measured and give an assessment of how each school has progressed.

6.1 Staff and pupil surveys

The description of the findings thus far has included reference to individual and group interviews, observations and some brief mention of the pupil and staff surveys. These surveys contributed to our understanding of each school's context and climate, as well as to the process of identification of key variables that might impact on the success of RP in different schools. The surveys were undertaken at Easter 2005 (staff) and September 2005 (pupils). They were not intended to be base-line data to be repeated later, as they represented a snapshot of the schools at very different stages of their development of Restorative Practices. The main findings from the staff and pupils surveys are now summarised below (for further detail see Appendices 2 and 3).

Staff survey

As outlined in Chapter 3, 627 completed questionnaires were returned, which represents an overall response rate of 45%. The response rates for the different types of schools differed with primary schools having an overall rate of 56% and secondary schools 42%. The survey was carried out about eight months into the project, so some schools, particularly secondary schools, were still at a very early stage.

A large majority of staff respondents across schools felt that:

• their school was inclusive of all pupils
• pupils were expected to work hard
• the school recognised a range of achievements
• new pupils were helped to settle in
• parents/carers were welcomed in the school.

These features are indicative of a positive school ethos and known to assist the likelihood of Restorative Practices becoming successfully embedded in school culture.

However, it was also found that:

• more primary staff than secondary staff were likely to agree strongly with the statements above
• most staff felt that punishment was sometimes necessary
• male staff were more likely to state that punishment was sometimes necessary
• questions about the extent of bullying and use of exclusion produced very wide variations in response.

In relation to questions directly related to RP, a far greater proportion of primary staff indicated that they understood what was meant by the term, had been offered training and that they used RP effectively. However, staff across all sectors indicated that they would like further training.

Pupil survey

This was aimed at pupils in P5 and P7 in primary school and S2 and S4 in secondary school. The total number of questionnaires returned was 1163. Again the survey was undertaken at a relatively early stage of the implementation of Restorative Practices in some schools, although others, particularly primary schools were further ahead.

In the pupil survey, a majority of respondents said that they:

• liked coming to school
• had friends in school
• had people to call on when problems arose
• that problems were resolved
• were expected to work hard

Overall, they were generally very positive about their school experience. However, there were also clear differences between primary and secondary pupils with regard to some questions:

• Secondary pupils were more likely than primary pupils to state that there were discipline problems
• Secondary pupils were more likely than primary pupils to state that there were attendance issues

In relation to other questions directly related to RP, nearly half of secondary pupils felt that too many pupils were excluded (many primary pupils did not respond to this question). Like staff, most pupils agreed that punishment was sometimes necessary. A large proportion of pupils also stated that bullying was a problem in their school. Clearly such a statement must be treated with caution: it may reflect an increased awareness of issues around bullying rather than an increase in bullying incidents in school. However, it should also be noted that twice as many comments were made about bullying than any other single topic.

6.2 Common Indicators and Restorative Practices

While there are common indicators across LAs and schools such as attendance and exclusion rates, and FME, such statistics cannot fully convey the complexity of the relationships between these different factors in schools. However it was felt that by the end of the extended pilot project (2008) such figures might indicate in general terms whether, and in what ways, the RP pilot had had an impact. At this stage, as we shall show, they have a complex and unclear relationship with other indicators of success in the schools.

At the start of the RP pilot the use of common indicators was much discussed at LA and school level. Some schools were keen to focus on more qualitative indicators and felt that using levels of common indicators such as exclusion rates could only offer a partial picture at best. They pointed out that one pupil or a small group of pupils can 'skew' the figures for a school quite markedly. However, other schools were interested to see how RP might affect the use of exclusion in their setting. We did not set out to gather data on pupil attainment; however in a small number of primary schools there was evidence of improved pupil attainment over the period of the study. We cannot claim that this was as a direct consequence of the implementation of RPs.

The school roll in the primary schools ranged from just over 200 to just below 500. In the secondary schools there was an even wider range with the smallest secondary school having a roll of just over 400 and the largest around 1750. The numbers of pupils excluded (see Table 4) were considerably lower in primary schools than in secondary schools, as would be expected. In this group of schools size of roll also seemed to be of importance in relation to exclusion levels; the schools with the higher rolls also excluding more pupils. The largest primary school had the highest number of pupils excluded but, interestingly, did not have the highest FME rate (see Table 3). The primary school with the highest FME rate reduced its exclusions from 6 pupils (3% of school roll) to none in 2005-2006. The primary school with the largest increase in exclusions was experiencing other changes including the secondment of its Headteacher during this time. Other schools saw an increase in numbers of exclusions from 2003-2004 to the following year but then a decrease.

Table 3 Free School Meal Entitlement

www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/statistics/16412/schoolmealsfeb2006

www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/meals2005school.xls

www.scoltand.gov.uk/stats/schoolmeals04.xls

In terms of FME, it was not expected that there would be a significant change during the period of the pilot. Overall, the schools in the pilot were slightly more likely to have a more prosperous catchment than the national average of around 18%. However, it is also clear from Table 3 that each authority had at least one pilot school with a high FME rate, suggesting that the study did include schools in areas of significant socio-economic deprivation. The levels of FME for the secondary schools were lower than the primary schools, again as expected. However, the secondary school with the highest FME rate in the pilot was in a LA area with the lowest national FME rate overall. This school also had the highest rate of pupil exclusion in its area. In the other 3 secondary schools in this area, there was an increase from 2003-2004 to the following year and then a considerable decrease. The school with this relatively high exclusion and FME rate still had generally lower exclusion rate than in the other 2 LA areas.

Table 4 School Exclusions - Numbers of pupils excluded (on one or more occasions)

Scottish Executive Exclusions from Schools, 2004-2005, Statistics Publication Notice 1 Feb 2006

www.newSchoolLevelExclusionsDisChcked1dp.xls

www.Exclusionsfromschool2004-2005-schoolleveldata.xls

Exclusions refers to both 'Temporary' and 'Name removed from the register' as per SEED school level data. Over the period referred to above, Fife and Highland had no pupils removed from the register, and North Lanarkshire had a total of 13 pupils .

Table 5, below, matches the exclusion trends of schools to their overall achievement, as outlined subsequently in Table 6.

Table 5 Achievements of schools in relation to numbers of pupils excluded

Overall, it seems that primary schools made progress irrespective of the level of FME and exclusions, although we note that numbers of pupils excluded are generally lower across the board in primary schools. Two of the 3 schools with the highest FME in the study were also felt by the evaluation team to be among the 7 schools to have made the most significant achievement in implementing RP across the school by summer 2006 (Table 6). In secondary schools, of the two that made the most progress both had lower than average FME and both saw a decrease in exclusions.

Over the two years of the pilot project (2004-2006), 6 of the primary/special schools considered to have made significant achievements overall in terms of RP had no or low exclusions, although one did have increased numbers of exclusions. There were 2 secondary schools considered to have made significant progress; both had decreasing numbers of pupils excluded. The secondary schools with progress in places had a more complex picture, one with a low rate, two decreasing and the last increasing. Of the secondary schools viewed as making progress but in the early stages, two showed numbers of exclusions reducing and the third showed an increase in numbers of exclusions. In the final school, where other developments had overtaken RP, numbers excluded were stable.

So the relationship between change, common indicators and RP is complex. It is clear that there is a relationship but perhaps too early to be confident about how to define it.

6.3 Summative achievements of the schools

Table 6 below offers a summary of the extent of schools' progress in implementing Restorative Practices over the two-year pilot. The table was constructed on the basis of a school by school analysis of all qualitative and quantitative findings, which was then matched against a set of indicators of success. The key below provides the indicators of achievement. The indicators of achievement were developed by the research team, based on analysis of interviews with key Local Authority and school staff. The table offers an indication of the relative progress of the 18 schools participating in the evaluation.

Table 6 Achievements of schools by summer 2006

Key for Table 6 Indicators of Achievement

Indicators:
Significant achievement across school
Clear evidence of school change
Staff mainly positive views and understandings about RP
Most staff and pupils familiar with key ideas, if not the term
Evidence of permeation of practice and of positive outcomes
Evidence of improved relationships within the school
Pupils indicated that they were listened to
Integrated, or working towards integrated, policy framework
Broad focus on values as well as strategies and practices
Staff reflect on practice
Clear impact on discipline and school climate

Significant achievement in places
Clear evidence of Restorative Practices and developments
Enthusiasm and understanding by key school staff and in some classrooms and subjects
Challenge to still widen across all classrooms or subjects
Key staff and some class/subject staff familiar with key ideas and reflect on practice
Some visible impact on discipline and school climate

Early stages but evidence of progress
Evidence of commitment and enthusiasm by key school staff
Some staff trained
Some practices developed in particular settings or by particular staff, eg Behaviour support teacher, or subject teacher in own classroom
Plans in place for further development
Beginning impact on discipline and school climate

Other priorities dominate
Other pressures/developments mean that RP not high priority
Some staff wish to promote this but lack of overall clear plans

6.4 Summary

The summative findings of the evaluation are very positive. As can be seen, 14 of the 18 schools made some significant achievements, either across the school or in some parts of the school. In a further 3 schools, for a range of reasons, progress was slower, but there was real evidence of progress. In only one school, due to other pressures, was there very little progress. The pilot projects were slow to begin in several schools and so sometimes the impact of change was only beginning to show by the end of the two years. Nonetheless, on the basis of analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data gathered and discussed in this and the previous chapter, there was strong evidence of real and sustained engagement with the project overall and substantial gains made in many of the schools.

« Previous | Contents | Next »