The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 Analysis of the Education Authority- Issued Guidance on Racist Incidents

Collation of the Guidance

4.1 Awareness-raising telephone calls were made to the equality officers in all 32 EAs to discuss the project and request copies of their guidance and monitoring forms for recording RIs. Discussions with eight of the EAs also covered the case study elements of the research with initial consideration of schools within their localities that could participate in those consultations.

4.2 The response from EAs was mixed. In some cases we were referred to officers in other parts of the local authority or signposted to other EA colleagues. In others the information was emailed or posted to YCL straight away. Four EAs highlighted that they were in the process of revising their guidance.

4.3 In total, all 32 sets of guidance were received from the EAs. There were several telephone conversations with a number of EAs to secure copies of their guidance.

Analysis of the Guidance

4.4 The analysis of the Education Authority-issued guidance to schools builds on the previous work conducted by CERES⁹ in January 2005.

4.5 The initial overview by CERES provides a valuable analysis of the types of monitoring and recording systems and data collection that takes place across schools and EAs in Scotland.

4.6 The analysis for this project has focused on the content of the EA guidance. These materials have been compared against a series of areas that could be considered as key elements within any robust guidance designed for teaching staff to effectively address RIs within the school environment. These are:

• a rationale - an explanation of the purpose of monitoring, recording and analysing RIs with clear links to educational concerns and priorities that connect to whole school policies, including the REP;
• an identification of incidents - specific definition of a racist incident, how they might manifest themselves, contextualised examples that also address issues like intention and repetition;
• a clear process for recording incidents - one that allows for a timely and effective response, covers who, how and when the incident should be recorded and provides clear scope for describing the key elements of the incident (including ethnicity, age and gender of perpetrator and victim); type of incident, follow up action and clear guidance notes for completion of the monitoring form;
• proposed school actions:
  • related to the specific incidents - steps to support the victim, follow-up action with the perpetrator, advice to parents, signposting to additional advice and information;
  • related to school-wide activity - suggestions of curricular content, school ethos, staff development as both a preventative measure and following an RI;
  • related to school monitoring and analysis - analysis of racist incident data cross referenced with e.g. attainment and bullying to discern any patterns and possible impact and suggestions for publication mechanisms in accordance with REP requirements.

4.7 Each set of guidance, which ranged from a two page document to a 40 page submission, was examined and the above criteria were applied to provide a comprehensive picture of the content of guidance currently being followed in Scottish schools.

4.8 There were significant differences in some of the approaches taken by EAs. Three EAs simply included a racist incident monitoring form within the appendices of their REPs with no explanatory guidance. Three other EAs incorporated the recording of RIs within more generic policies; one within their anti-bullying policy; one within their anti-social behaviour policy and the other within their indiscipline and exclusion policy. In all cases there was no mention of RIs until the wording appears on a monitoring form in the appendices. Therefore six EAs are taking very limited action to address the specific needs of RIs and to guide schools in monitoring them effectively.

4.9 The other 26 EAs, to varying degrees, cover aspects of dealing with RIs within their guidance to schools and the remainder of this section looks at how this applies to each of the four elements identified in 4.6, across the 26 EAs.

Rationale

4.10 The majority of the EAs (23) do not provide any rationale for recording and monitoring RIs. In some cases information was provided about the race relations legislation but generally the guidance launched straight into a definition of a racist incident and the detail of how to record and complete the monitoring forms.

4.11 There were some exceptions to this approach; three sets of guidance explained the value and purpose of collecting, recording and monitoring RIs. A more significant number, seven, did link the need to address incidents to the effect that incidents can have on the local community with others mentioning the school's responsibility for the care and welfare of all the pupils; the negative impact RIs can have on a pupil and the need to prepare pupils so that they can positively contribute and perform as a citizen in today's pluralist society.

4.12 On a few occasions the guidance was grounded within the local context, linked to local policies, local research as well as the broader picture like the National Priorities in Education and standards in schools.

4.13 Within the group of EAs that provided a rationale, links were also made to the REP and the legislation that applies to racial harassment, e.g. the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as well as referring to the amended Race Relations Act 1976.

4.14 However, looking at the overall picture, the explanation or preamble that would serve to encourage or convince teachers of the need to record, monitor and address RIs is weakly conveyed.

Identification of Incidents

4.15 Of the 26 sets of guidance that specifically address dealing with RIs, 18 provided a definition of an RI, 17 of these used the one identified in the MacPherson Report ¹⁰:

" any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"

4.16 One EA provided a different definition stating that:

"incidents may be considered racist where the victim feels that a racist incident has taken place or a person from an ethnic minority background has been involved".

4.17 The types of RIs varied from one EA to another. Some identified up to 14 different types of incidents (often providing a clear indication of the behaviour or actions that would be displayed, like ridicule of an individual for cultural reasons) others only listed two kinds of incident.

4.18 The four ¹¹EAs following anti-bullying guidance request more details on the incident in terms of location, timing and actions taken, but do not allow for the recording of incidents like graffiti, badge-wearing etc. This can lead to some incidents going unreported, if viewed as one-off or if there is no specific pupil affected by the racist behaviour.

Process for Recording Incidents

4.19 In most cases, the recording system is the most robust element of the guidance. Yet, as with the other elements, the content is significantly different across the range of EAs.

4.20 For those EAs (6) that belong to a MARIM group the process was lengthy and very detailed in recording the incident, location and the particulars (age, gender and ethnicity) of the victim and the perpetrator. There was clarity about who has responsibility for reporting the incident and in some cases specific timelines are stipulated. These forms appear very formal and are designed to be used by a number of agencies, e.g. the police, health service, etc. Therefore whilst the action taken following an incident was requested on the form, there was no guidance to suggest follow-up action. This is because this is a more generic tool.

4.21 The 12 followers of the TRIWES-based system had a much shorter monitoring form to complete which was specifically designed for reporting incidents in schools. The brevity of the monitoring report might restrict the amount of detail collected. Unlike the MARIM system, the guidance provides suggestions for supporting the victim, dealing with the perpetrator and preventative measures within school that relate to the school ethos, the curriculum and opportunities to recognise and celebrate diversity.

4.22 The reporting structure for those remaining 14 EAs not following the TRIWES or MARIM based systems varied quite significantly. In one or two good examples, information additional to the details on the TRIWES form was requested about:

• the action provided to support the victim;
• the level of parental involvement;
• the follow-up preventative work that was done;
• the timing of the review to assess the effectiveness of the follow-up action.

4.23 In this group, key elements relating to the incident also varied. For example one monitoring form only recorded the names of the victim and the perpetrator but not their ethnicity, age or gender. Others sought more information, like the religion of the victim and the perpetrator.

4.24 Across all sets of guidance most approaches were normally accompanied by a flow chart which summarised the process. The timeframe (when specified) for recording and reporting the incident varied from monthly, termly to annually.

Proposed School Actions

4.25 This is the area that the majority of the guidance fails to address, particularly the MARIM-type systems where the forms and approach are designed to be used by a range of agencies. In the 14 cases where there is an 'actions section' the recording form asks about action taken immediately after the incident and has prompts like counselling, school discipline, parent/guardian involvement. A couple also have a greater focus on school activity like circle time ¹² and personal and social education ( PSE).

4.26 Four EAs provided sample letters to send to parents to inform them of the incident but no further practical guidance is provided or additional support that parents might need to access.

4.27 Actions that were identified within guidance rarely went beyond addressing the immediate incident and, whilst some EAs suggested reviewing school ethos and curricular content, practical examples were not provided.

4.28 A more strategic approach to analysing the data and cross-referencing against other performance measures is mentioned by just two EAs. Again, this is generally an area that is overlooked.

Summary

4.29 Across the 32 sets of guidance there are elements of good practice which could be brought together to form a comprehensive document that provides practical guidance and a thorough understanding of the need to monitor and address RIs and how best to do that. However no individual set of guidance comprehensively addresses the four areas which they were assessed against. The areas least well addressed were:

• the rationale for recording RIs; and
• follow-up actions on a school-wide level to address and monitor racist behaviour and its impact.

4.30 There is clearly a need to produce material that can assist schools with the interpretation of the data and increase ownership of the monitoring of RIs so that preventative work within the school can be carried out as well as effective follow-up work with parents and pupils affected by racist behaviour.

4.31 This need for more comprehensive guidance is further highlighted during the case study visits which are discussed in the next section.

« Previous | Contents | Next »