Scottish Government

7 WHAT MADE FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION?

Introduction

The eighteen pilot schools had different expectations of their involvement in the RPs pilot. They also had different experiences of implementing RPs and varying degrees of success. What made for successful implementation? This section will discuss differences between the pilot schools and will relate those differences to successful implementation. School experiences of implementation are compared and contrasted under five broad themes: readiness; aims and change processes; training; leadership; and, multiple innovation.

The evaluation indicated that greatest success was achieved where schools had the overall aim of improving school ethos by creating and sustaining positive relationships throughout the school community. However, there was also evidence of significant progress in schools where more limited aims were achieved.

7.1 Readiness for Restorative Practices

What conditions should be present if a school is to successfully implement RPs? The 18 schools, as was evident in earlier chapters, were very varied in terms of their locality, population and their readiness to develop RPs. The LAs had taken different approaches to this, so some schools were included because key LA staff thought that their existing ethos and practices were already compatible with RPs, others because they were not well developed or indeed that they were seen to be in need of significant change.

Some schools in the pilot group had in fact already embarked upon Restorative projects and had been selected by the LA for that very reason. For those schools, most but not all of them primary schools, RPs offered a chance to extend and enhance existing development work. For example, in several primary schools there had been considerable involvement in peer mediation and personal, social and cognitive skills development as a means of improving relationships across the school. So the opportunity to become one of the RPs pilot schools in 2004 was represented as a way of building on foundations already laid.

Most secondary schools wished to 'start small' but had clear ideas about how they wanted to 'grow'. All Headteachers were acutely sensitive to staff stress and innovation fatigue and most stressed the links to existing initiatives as a way of encouraging staff.

Further contributing to schools' readiness for the RPs pilot was the enthusiasm of senior staff, particularly, although not exclusively, of the Headteacher. Many Headteachers had been recently appointed (see Table 7). Ethos building was an all-embracing approach to implementation and required huge amounts of energy and commitment. The appointment of a new Headteacher often provided an injection of both of these, but also enabled existing staff to take a new tack, allowing them to acknowledge that things could and should be better. In one school the ethos changed significantly following on the appointment of a new Headteacher. It served an area described by LA staff as 'really challenging' with a transient population and high levels of unemployment. The school had the highest free school entitlement in the LA and, prior to the new Headteacher taking up post, had more exclusions than any other primary school in the LA. The relationship between school and community had been problematic. There had been a culture of 'hitting back':

I see the problem as being the parents and changing the culture of the parents and the neighbourhood because children will come into school and say 'but my mum says I've to batter him' (staff member).

The Headteacher had been in post for eighteen months when the pilot began and there had also been five additional staff changes, as well as a new educational psychologist. In that time, the school ethos had started to change so that in 2004/05, the first year of the RPs pilot, the school had no exclusions and no pupils in behaviour support for the first time since it opened in 1991.

A crucial part of the school's readiness for change 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:

The reputation of the school was very negative before I came… I feel that has changed quite dramatically (staff member).

We have got more and more children choosing to come in the last year and a half…our Primary One intake was the biggest it has been for seven years…we get positive reports from the children who have moved here from elsewhere (staff member) .

By contrast, in some schools where less progress was made, the impetus for change was external, for example, the need to comply with HMIE recommendations. In some schools critical reports from HMIE, associated with management changes, had created an impetus for positive culture change; in other schools, where morale was already quite low in some staff, such critical reports seemed to discourage staff.

There were some signs that RPs themselves could inspire established senior staff with the energy needed to take things forward. For example, in one secondary school, the deputy Headteacher, after participation in a 4 day training, reported that he had been initially sceptical of the value of the four day course but 'came away fully convinced, absolutely fully convinced that this was a very powerful tool'. Even training which was highly motivational, however, could have its effects undermined by school cultures that were generally unreceptive of RPs thinking. In some cases, the enthusiasm of one or two trained staff was stifled by wider apathy and even hostility. General insecurity about discipline in some of the pilot schools meant that there was an unwillingness to shift away from traditional retributive approaches and towards RPs. In one school, still in the early stages of developing RP, for example, it was believed by staff that Restorative Practices were being introduced in a difficult environment; many staff thought that children's behaviour in school had deteriorated in recent years. Pupils in this school were seen by some staff as more aggressive and 'lippy' than in other schools, although incidents of serious verbal or physical aggression here were rare. Teachers voiced the view that it was not possible to engage in restorative negotiations in the middle of a busy class session with thirty pupils, and that time constraints were simply too great. One teacher made the comment that ' we'd all like to be more restorative, but there's no time available'.

Forms of school organisation and communication, 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. In one secondary, during the course of the evaluation, those working in Pupil Support advocated that the use of RPs should be extended throughout the school. There were 'pockets of interest' but there would be no school-wide change unless use was more widespread. There was some resistance in the wider staff group where RPs were seen as challenging to the disciplinary standards of the school and as incompatible with existing sanctions. Thus, particularly, in some secondary schools, readiness was very uneven across the schools with those working in Pupil Support demonstrating interest and even enthusiasm that was lacking elsewhere in the school. A key challenge for those schools was how RPs could be used in a permeating way.

Individual, idiosyncratic features of schools impacted on progress. In every school there were some features that could have undermined progress, for example staff who were resistant or not confident about RPs. However, overall, schools that were successful in implementing or making significant progress in developing RPs were characterised by the following features at the beginning of the process:

• enthusiastic managers (often, but not always, relatively newly appointed)
• staff morale that was positive enough for them to be confident in their ability to change
• a broadly child-centred ethos
• other initiatives that could be incorporated into or were compatible with RPs
• an open culture that supported staff relationships
• significant numbers of staff willing to take part in staff development/ training

7.2 Aims and change processes

Schools who were more successful in implementing RPs had clearly articulated aims for the pilot initiative. For example, one primary school had applied and been accepted by the LA as an RPs pilot because of its relatively new Headteacher and also because the school had a specific purpose with regard to RPs. They were to be used in the playground to deal with conflict. The school's web entry illustrated the intention for RPs:

Arkle Primary School believes in prevention and pre-emption and therefore we included Restorative Approaches in our School Development Plan and began in 2004 to develop mediation to support children in the playground situation (from RP web entry dated Nov 2005).

The school development plans detailed monitoring strategies and success criteria as well as aims for RPs and other initiatives, all of which were related to the same fundamental aim of increasing participation in the school community and improving relationships. The process of development planning was LA-wide and systems were in place to ensure both accountability and support for school development.

In one less successful secondary, however, RPs were not on the school's development plan at the start of the initiative but it was a rolling plan and it was hoped that the RPs initiative would be included in the new version drawn up during 2004/05. However, towards the end of the evaluation (March 2006), this had not happened. The school felt it was at an early stage in preparing for implementation and at the start of the evaluation indicators of success for RPs were not clearly defined. It was anticipated that there would be some apathy, perhaps even antipathy, from some parents and some staff. However, it had been thought that there would be enough interest and enthusiasm to launch the initiative and that it would gather momentum as it proceeded. There was interest and enthusiasm but some staff felt torn between competing development priorities. Whilst the development of support systems for pupils was seen as very important to the school, RPs were not seen as the main part of this endeavour. The school was trying to develop its 'Discipline is for Learning' policy, and integrate it with the staged intervention approach that the LA was promoting. There was some uncertainty about whether these initiatives were compatible with RPs.

Successful implementation did not require that schools use one formula in establishing RPs. Clarity and specificity of aims, and their synthesis with other development priorities, mattered more than the nature of those aims. Generally, successful primary schools aimed to use RPs in low-key, preventative ways where they could be integrated into existing practices, such as Circle Time, for example. In secondary schools, aims were likely to be more focused on a particular area of the school or a particular aspect of practice. In one secondary, a restorative approach was introduced in its behaviour support unit with the aim that it would develop from there to the whole school over time. The staff in the support unit reported a decrease in return rates of pupils after one year and attributed this to the success of RPs. In a number of secondary schools, senior management decided to focus efforts on pupils in the early stages, and on S1 in particular. Many would agree with one Headteacher who explained she was keen to 'show that it works rather than involve all staff from the beginning'.

Schools started with very diverse aims for RPs, some broad some highly specific; however often where progress was made in implementation, RPs had started to permeate other, existing practices, even where this had not been the original aim. Implementation of RPs in the Scottish pilot is in its early stages - too early for claims to be made about sustainability - but indications are that schools can change their culture using permeating approaches. In primary schools where there were notable advances in 're-culturing' the school using RPs, formal conferencing was not a feature. Rather, RPs gave an identity to changing school ethos through its capacity to knit together a range of practices permeating the social network of the school.

Schools that managed the implementation most effectively had clear and specific goals for RPs, as well as broad aims. The development planning process was used well in some schools, allowing them to target changes, to coordinate different initiatives and to use resources in ways that contributed to school aims. Planning processes also allowed schools to set realistic timescales for implementation with targets and milestones so that those involved could detect progress over the whole period needed for change to become embedded. In some schools, the sense of control over the initiative was such that staff could vary from the plan and the timescale for implementation where flexibility was needed to foster success. For example, in Braeriach Primary, the Headteacher articulated her belief in the importance of ' going slowly' and ' taking children and staff with you' if change were to be deep and lasting. Thus, although objectives, timescales and success criteria were needed, sensitivity to the values, attitudes and expectations of all those involved in implementation was also a factor in success. This deep approach to school change was particularly important when the focus for change was the ethos of the school.

There was evidence in some of the pilot schools of commitment to collaborative and highly participative approaches to implementation. This included recognition of existing expertise in restorative working and efforts to coordinate those practices towards a common goal. In one secondary the school janitor was an accomplished practitioner of RPs who used his skills regularly in the playground, cafeteria and corridors:

Well I try and impress upon them that whatever they do at any particular time has always got consequences for not only themselves but for other people (staff member ).

In many schools the commitment and developing skills of classroom assistants, playground workers and janitors were important in promoting RPs.

The central importance of collaboration in effecting change explains the close relationship between individual and school development. School development is linked to the opportunities pupils, parents and staff have for learning new things. Schools that fostered learning for all in the school community were more likely to bring about improvements. There was recognition of the learning achieved through collaboration itself. In schools that implemented RPs successfully, there were multiple opportunities for those involved to learn from each other. Sometimes those opportunities were not planned as such but opportunities for participation and collaboration enabled those involved to develop their skills and their understandings through discussion and observation. There was evidence in some secondary schools that classroom collaboration might offer a way of drawing subject teachers more fully into RPs implementation. It seems that the differences between, for example, a large secondary school and a much smaller special school were felt to require different approaches, and reflected the initial understanding by schools that they were free to develop their approaches in ways which suited their own needs. Size of school was an important factor; there were differences between the experiences of small and large secondary schools. However this was not a straightforward link, as although some larger schools, both in terms of staff and physical size, clearly had difficulties with communication, others had more successfully integrated staff cultures.

Key features included:

• clarity and specificity of aims
• synthesis with other development priorities
• permeative approaches were effective in developing ethos and promoting culture change
• realistic, clear but flexible timetable for change
• recognition of valuable contribution of non-teaching staff
• multiple opportunities for staff development
• opportunities for collaborative working between staff
• acknowledgement of staff members' existing skills
• important contribution of non-teaching staff.

7.3 Training

Training was seen by each of the three LAs as a central aspect of effective implementation, and a great deal of thought was put in to finding and developing productive links with national trainers. However each area also developed its own approach to training and had its own priorities within an overall commitment to its importance.

In most schools, the opportunity for each school to identify its own training needs led to a good mix of internal and external training and a positive response from those who took part. Primary schools in general aimed to include all staff from early on, other schools started with those who expressed interest and then widened out to encompass more staff. All schools were very aware of the importance of staff development in relation to broad issues of values and interpersonal relationships as well as particular strategies and skills. In support of broad and permeating approaches to RPs, training was often offered to non-teaching staff. This was identified in interviews as important and valuable.

A range of external providers were employed across the LAs, including local voluntary sector organisations, English and international trainers. Some LA and school staff also visited the International Institute for Restorative Practices in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and others visited a Barnardo's school conferencing project in Belfast.

Different approaches were sometimes seen to be appropriate for the primary and secondary sectors; primary school focussed training being more broadly rooted in interpersonal skills and relationships. Sometimes early training was focused on managers and pastoral care staff, enabling these senior staff to then train staff in their own settings. The ways in which this training was cascaded differed widely between the schools. Some schools used whole staff group in-service times; others made this voluntary for interested staff. In some primary schools, there were indications that the RPs initiative had shaped the development of professional learning communities where staff, and not just teachers, engaged in collaborative and critical enquiry into school practices with a view to the development of those practices. Staff in a number of schools in the three LAs have subsequently also been invited to talk about RPs in other schools and LAs and at national conferences.

Staff felt that the Authority and in-school 'recall days' offered a good level of support and helped sustain and develop their skills and confidence. Most staff in both primary and secondary schools felt that they would like more training, including further opportunities to observe and practise Restorative ways of working. The time for training was seen as a particular issue in the rural area with such long travelling distances. The costs of providing cover, and of finding staff to provide that cover, were also noted in several schools.

Training was a clear priority for each LA but views about the best balance of internal and external training differed. No one approach to training was viewed as the most effective, although staff commented that some Restorative Justice based training had been insufficiently school-focussed. Most schools treated formal staff development opportunities as a high priority and staff participation had the effect of providing high levels of motivation and enthusiasm. Sometimes, opportunities were very closely tied to the needs of schools and provision was responsive and flexible, targeting particular groups or aspects of RPs. Where school staff themselves were the providers of staff development for colleagues, this practice had the effect of signalling clear leadership for the RPs initiative from inside the school. It also enabled staff development to be closely tied to the development of RPs in each school.

In summary:

• staff development and training was strongly valued and seen as essential
• Local Authorities provided local and external training
• training opportunities varied from whole school sessions to those aimed at key or interested staff
• purposes of training ranged from broad awareness raising to skills development to a focus on particular school priorities
• no one approach was seen as most effective for all settings
• but training was seen as less effective if not strongly based on educational setting
• many staff members would like continued opportunities for training and support.

7.4 Leadership

Most Headteachers were engaged with RPs from the beginning, particularly in the primary schools. A smaller number became engaged as the pilot developed. A minority was not involved with the development of RPs in their school at all.

Table 7 School Change: Senior Management - Restorative Practices

There was, as is apparent above, considerable change among managers in the 18 schools, with 11 new Headteachers during, or within a couple of years of the start of the pilot project. In some schools it was too soon to see the impact of the new managers. In others it was clear that it had provided a positive impetus for change.

In schools where implementation was more successful, Headteachers and senior managers actively endorsed and publicly modelled RPs in their work with pupils, parents and staff. In Braeriach Primary, for example, the Headteacher had a weekly drop-in session where parents could raise any issues they had. Parents interviewed clearly valued this opportunity and had made use of it.

Effective leadership of the RPs pilot also enabled others to take on leadership roles. Some Headteachers provided the means for colleagues to disseminate RPs throughout the school community. This was done by creating and enabling RPs 'champions' and supporting their work fully throughout the initiative. This distributed leadership was not simply delegation. Headteachers working in this way were themselves still 'hands on' in the initiative. In primary schools that implemented RPs effectively, staff in key positions, related to school goals for RPs, had significant responsibilities for the initiative, for example, classroom assistants. The development of RPs in Arkle Primary stemmed from the commitment of the Headteacher, together with a great deal of devolved responsibility for RPs to 2 key members of staff, one of whom was a classroom assistant. The nature of this leadership and their enthusiasm and commitment both modelled and promoted RPs at all levels within the school:

And that's something that the pupils pick up on, if we are all very cohesive and there's a positive atmosphere, it sort of trickles down and then they [pupils] are happy and you do see that, its not an obvious thing and there is nothing sort of … you can't summatively assess it, its just there. And that's something they can't fake, it has to be built up over the years, for me anyway its very positive (staff member ).

Similarly, in another primary, the Headteacher enabled a class teacher and an Additional Support teacher to take significant responsibility for the development of RPs within the school, including working with pupils and support staff to provide training and raise awareness of RPs.

Staff in secondary schools also had considerable responsibility for taking things forward and sometimes had significant success in areas related to Pupil Support. Many of those providing leadership for RPs in secondary schools had prime responsibility in Pupil Support. Their influence here was well-evidenced but they were not necessarily well-placed to spread the initiative across the school. However, there were indications that those staff would be able to influence colleagues given time and opportunity. In some secondary schools subject PTs had taken some responsibility for development, in others subject staff were interested but worried about the time commitment. In this Secondary, two PTs of subject departments indicated their interest in RPs and their desire to us them in their areas of the school:

I would love to get involved in this. I would love my department to take it on ….but the amount of time that it is going to take….people should allow us to implement something like this in the long term. Sometimes, I feel that with education we try to change things overnight (subject PT).

In some cases, there were indications that pupils, too, could fulfil a leadership role in school development. In Arkle Primary, for example, involvement in the RPs pilot appeared to have broadened teachers' approach and enabled them proactively to involve pupils:

It's reinforcing … getting new ideas, new ways of work … you are involving the pupils in it and they are taking ownership of it … its giving them a sense of, I don't know, that they are part of the team, the bigger picture (staff member).

There was no sense from staff that they saw increased pupil involvement as undermining or diminishing of their own contribution. The positioning of pupils as active subjects in the development, and not just passive recipients of its benefits, was a notable feature of successful implementation. Pupil participation contributed hugely to the creation of a 'critical mass' in some schools in support of the initiative, challenging the notion that the attitudes of all staff need to be addressed directly if change were to be pursued.

In summary:

• visible commitment and modelling by school managers was key
• modelling by SMT characterised successful schools
• other staff and pupils were also highly influential
• in secondary schools, pupil support staff were influential
• major changes at SMT level over the period of the pilot had varying effects on the implementation of RP, some very positive.

7.5 Multiple innovation

All schools in the pilot were involved in multiple initiatives. Why did some schools experience this as helpful and others as impossibly burdensome? The answer was that multiple innovations were not a problem when they were seen to connect to each other and to the same values base. Problems were encountered in the pilot when RPs were experienced as yet another 'add on'.

In one secondary, where the pilot project did not make great progress, members of the senior management team voiced the opinion that quite a lot of conflict situations were caused by the way in which staff interacted with pupils. They were often too confrontational and created problems rather than de-escalating conflict. It was hoped that RPs would help teachers to manage those situations better and prevent them from becoming crises. Thus, the aim for RPs was that they would provide a tool to help teachers improve their behaviour management skills. Some staff commented however that the LA embarked on too many initiatives at the same time without making proper connections between them.

Experience of the RPs initiative as part of an integrated approach to school development was exemplified in Fiarach Primary where there were established very participative ways of working, with a great deal of discussion and negotiation at all levels. RPs were not seen as something new, but as part of the pervasive ethos of the school. There were a number of ongoing initiatives that contributed to the restorative culture. For example, there was a buddying initiative between P6 pupils and the nursery, with pupils going to the nursery on a regular basis to work with the younger children. This was seen as benefiting younger children but also building the self-esteem of older children, particularly when this was low. Work on RPs also fitted very well with, and further honed, the peer mediation initiative, which the school had been developing for some time.

Part of the appeal of RPs as a focus for effective school development was that they enabled an appraisal of the shared value system of the school. RPs as a vehicle for school development offered more than other initiatives in that the planned change was articulated as more than just desired outcomes; the approaches were expressed as principles to be pursued through processes, values and goals. Thus, RPs provided the 'glue' that enabled multiple innovations to be experienced as a single, encompassing and coherent endeavour.

7.6 Summary

Measures of success always relate to aims and any attempt to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of RP must take account of this. One of the key features of the implementation of RP was that schools were encouraged to devise their own aims for RP, taking into account their own needs, existing priorities and local context. Successful schools had clear and specific aims.

In this section, we have also drawn attention to other significant factors in the implementation: readiness; aims and change processes; training; leadership and the impact of multiple innovation. These factors reflect the complexity of schooling and the many competing demands on pupils, staff and parents.

The evaluation did identify a number of key features of successful implementation. These include a clear focus on a positive, child-centred ethos and a commitment to building positive relationships based on mutual respect in and out of the classroom. Some schools were ready to participate as they already showed some of these features. However there was also evidence of real culture change in others, especially where there was strong commitment and modelling of RP by senior management. Enthusiastic managers were quite often, but not always, relatively newly appointed.

Good staff development experiences, and a clear structure of continuing support, were often noted by staff in schools that were making significant progress. Staff development and training was strongly valued and seen as essential. Although different approaches to training were liked, no particular approach seemed to be most effective for all settings. However training was seen as less effective if not strongly based on educational settings.

Change was effective when there was a clear but flexible timetable for change. Staff morale affected willingness to change and to be involved in new initiatives. However successful schools balanced the stimulus of innovation with an approach that linked RPs with existing school developments that could be incorporated into or were compatible with RPs. Multiple innovations were not a problem when they were seen to connect to each other and to the same value base. Although there were different models of effective implementation, problems were encountered when RPs were experienced as yet another 'add on'.

The significant contribution of non-teaching staff was acknowledged and multiple opportunities for collaborative working and staff development created. While successful schools recognised the need for both value clarification and skill development they also valued staff members' existing skills. Leadership by school managers was key; however other staff and pupils were also highly influential.

Below we offer 4 composite exemplars that illustrate differing levels of success in implementation of RPs in the 18 Scottish schools involved in the evaluation.

Exemplar 1 A primary school where there is a strong establishment of RP.

This primary school had recently had a new Headteacher, interested in new thinking and in making her school more pupil-centred. The school introduced peer mediation and pupil problem solving. The whole staff, teachers and support staff, were introduced to the ideas of RP at an away-day and key staff, including classroom assistants, were given further staff development, both at LA courses and within the school. The school saw Restorative ideas and practices as compatible with other current policy and practice initiatives, in fact as an overall framework for much of their new development. School staff produced examples of Restorative language that were displayed around the school and a Restorative script on a card that was issued to everyone. Discipline referrals to the Headteacher reduced substantially as staff became confident about using their Restorative skills and there was less need for external behaviour support. Visitors to the school, as well as pupils, commented on the warm and peaceful atmosphere.

Exemplar 2 A primary school where some progress has been made towards establishing RP

This primary school is soon to move to a new build on a new site. Staff and parents have concerns about the move. The Headteacher and new Principal Teacher have been trained and are enthusiastic about RP, but the DHT is resistant. The Headteacher and PT have introduced the staff to the ideas as part of an In-service afternoon. This led to a number of class teachers attending training and they are now trying it out in their classrooms. They have said they would like more training but due to lack of cover availability and the school being under-staffed overall, the Headteacher feels unable to release them for follow-up/recall days at present. However, she has offered to assist staff by taking over the class at certain times of the week in order to allow them to work restoratively with individual pupils. A timetable for this is now being set up. Contacts with parents about RP have been on a 'need to know' basis and the hope is that, in time, the success of RPs will convince parents, some of whom have a punitive approach.

Exemplar 3 A secondary school where there is a strong establishment of RP

This secondary school saw RPs as helping to develop further a very positive ethos across the school. Systems of pupil support were strong and designed to ensure all pupils were part of a network of positive relationships. The Headteacher had not been long in post and his aims were to enhance pupil participation by providing opportunities for their views to be heard. RPs were seen to be in harmony with other aspects of school provision and development. Leadership for the initiative was provided by members of the senior management team. Their commitment and energy ensured a high profile for RPs in the school, for example, through the training they provided for the whole school community. Restorative circles were used regularly by members of the Pupil Support team in sorting out conflict. Staff, pupils and parents had been involved in these with positive outcomes on many occasions. RPs were firmly established in Pupil Support and their use was spreading to curricular areas where they had helped to improve the overall tone of relationships in some classes.

Exemplar 4 A secondary school where RPs did not become established

This secondary school had recently had a critical HMIE report. The key member of the senior management team who had expressed an interest in promoting RPs had left and no-one else had taken real responsibility for the development. Some staff had participated in authority level training but did not have the confidence or the authority to promote this throughout the school. Most staff were not aware of, or were ambivalent about, the ideas. The discipline system was based in assertive discipline and seemed incompatible with RPs. The school had received funding for another major policy initiative and was prioritising this. Some interesting practice was developed but this was not sustained and no further staff were trained.