The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

5 Case Study Visits

Introduction

5.1 The final element of the research for phase one of this project was to conduct detailed case studies within a selection of schools and EAs. This was intended to identify the level of understanding within schools and the range of policies and practices employed in tackling racist behaviour and incidents in schools.

5.2 Seven EAs were identified based on their location, population make-up, geographical size and density of population.

5.3 The EA lead person on equalities within each of the 7 EAs was interviewed to discuss the EA-issued guidance and support to schools, the reporting mechanisms for recording RIs and the links to the wider local structures and requirements in their REP.

5.4 Schools from within these EAs were identified by EA staff and contacted at the end of the summer term to secure their commitment to participate in the research at the start of the new academic year.

Schools Participating in the Case Study Visits

5.5 A total of 33 schools participated in the case studies during September and October 2005. These are broken down by school type in Table 5.1.

5.6 Within each school a variety of discussions took place with head teachers, members of the teaching and non-teaching staff and the pupils, numbers of each are displayed in table 5.2 below. The discussions were centred on semi-structured questions which covered the same themes but allowed for flexibility to recognise the schools' individual approach.

5.7 The information from these meetings provided a valuable insight into how incidents are tackled at a school level. The findings from the case studies are discussed in the remainder of this section. All responses have been anonymised.

Case Studies with Schools

5.8 The majority of schools acknowledged the systems for dealing with RIs developed by their EA and some appeared to be making links on the issue within the curriculum. Overall there was general support for the approach but there were very distinct differences in how RIs were tackled within and across EAs that range from the interpretation of an incident to the recording and handling of it.

5.9 Nevertheless, there were a series of challenges and issues that were common to many schools that, if addressed, could significantly improve the consistency of reporting and provide school staff with additional support and guidance to deal more effectively with this agenda.

5.10 Responses from consultees have been broken down and addressed under the following areas:

• defining RIs;
• process for recording and monitoring RIs;
• systems and approaches for addressing incidents and supporting pupils;
• barriers to addressing RIs;
• the anti racist toolkit website: Educating for Race Equality - a Toolkit for Scottish Teachers;
• reference and supporting materials;
• future support and assistance.

Defining Racist Incidents

5.11 The EA-guidance is relatively consistent in providing the same definition for a racist incident. As discussed in the previous section, 51% of EAs use the definition that was introduced in the Lawrence Report ¹⁴ " any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". However, as will be shown in this section, the application of this definition was much less coherent.

5.12 There appeared to be an element of confusion within some of the schools as to what constitutes a racist incident. Head teachers and their staff gave varying responses when asked for a definition ¹⁵. In some cases this included reference to sexual orientation, beliefs and even hair colour.

5.13 For others the issue of intention often influenced their handling of the incident, e.g. if the racist incident was based on ignorance and not malicious then it was not recorded. The use of the 'unintentional' category was widespread in schools and this practice was often supported by the guidance issued by the EAs. One teacher said, " I don't know if I'd report it. I know I'd make my own judgement if it's racist or whether it's just personality or ignorance and it just popped out".

5.14 Repetition was another factor that was considered by many schools when identifying an incident. If it was a 'first time offence' or occurred less than three times then it was sometimes not catalogued as a racist incident.

5.15 In the above school, the process for recording incidents varies from between staff, with some indicating that a RI would only be referred to senior staff if it was sufficiently serious. In addition, school management appear to have little faith in the relationship between recording of RIs and the addressing of these. The 'disconnection' between the 'vehicle' (monitoring of RIs) and the 'response' (addressing the occurrence of RIs) was a common theme across the case study work.

5.16 Only a small number of heads/teachers were familiar with the definition that relates to the victim's perception of the incident being racist (and the one commonly used in the EA guidance). This definition by Macpherson ¹⁶ was in response to the need for authorities, including the police, to see incidents from the perspective of the individual reporting the incident. It recognised the perception in the communities that such complaints were not being taken seriously or that their acceptance was dependent on a frequently white police officer's view of what constituted racism.

5.17 Very few teachers were in agreement with the Macpherson definition of an RI. Most were uncomfortable with being unable to interpret and reach the decision as to the nature of the incident. They felt that the definition went too far in enhancing the perception of the 'victim' over anyone else's judgement.

5.18 Nearly all the pupils in both primary and secondary schools had some understanding about racism. At the most basic level it was described as " being unkind to someone with different colour skin" with secondary school pupils showing their appreciation that racism extends to non-visible minorities like people form Northern Ireland or Gypsies/Travellers. Many pupils could provide examples of incidents they had witnessed within school, some which had been reported, and others which had not.

5.19 Discussions with staff, as well as the pupils revealed that a number of incidents were going unreported in the case study schools. Based on the detail in the EA guidance, the results of the postal survey and the visits it is probably a realistic reflection of what is happening across the school sector as a whole. Indeed, during the discussions with staff it was highlighted that a number of RIs had not been recorded. This was sometimes because at the time it had not been not recognised as one, it was felt that it was " kids being kids" or there was reluctance to " escalate matters" by reporting it to the EA. These barriers to recording incidents are explored further in this section. This suggests that the identification and recording of RIs in schools is not reported accurately.

Process for Recording and Monitoring Racist Incidents

5.20 Most of the schools that participated in the case study phase of the research were aware of the EA's process for recording RIs. Out of the 33 schools, eight had not recorded any incidents in the last academic year and five did not know how many incidents had occurred because the process and guidance had not been applied.

5.21 Incidents were generally reported by pupils but also by non-teaching staff, e.g. playground assistants, and teachers. They were normally passed to the head teacher or a member of the senior management team ( SMT) who had responsibility for recording the incidents. The approach of the SMT appeared to set the tone for how the rest of the school staff responded to and addressed RIs. " The only area where I follow EA guidance or systems is in two things, child abuse and illegal drugs and that's because the law is going to get involved. To be honest any school worth its salt knows how to approach this stuff with kids in a sensible way"

5.22 The HT/ SMT approach was sometimes influenced by the EA. In areas where the procedure was very clear and the importance of collecting information had been stated, schools completed returns regularly, e.g. every month. However the accuracy of such returns is questionable given the likely level of under-reporting.

5.23 In other EAs where there was less focus and encouragement in this area, some schools were not following any recording system and had not submitted information on incidents in recent years. This situation did not appear to be the subject of any form of follow-up and scrutiny by some corresponding EAs.

5.24 The low number of recorded incidents across the schools meant that there was little practical experience or knowledge of the specific EA-devised process beyond the senior managers, within schools.

5.25 In those EAs where the schools made maximum use of the Phoenix management system there were clear opportunities for the recording of RIs to be incorporated into the existing school monitoring systems. However there was no evidence that this was happening at EA level. One head teacher said " the EA has access to the information we input into Phoenix, so why not use this tool and have the form attached to the management system".

Systems and Approaches for Addressing Incidents and Supporting Pupils

5.26 All schools had clear systems for managing the behaviour of their pupils which ranged from zero tolerance to a restorative approach towards unacceptable behaviour.

5.27 Most schools adopted a similar approach to dealing with RIs as they did with bullying. This generally involved investigating the incident, speaking to the pupils involved, contacting parents (when deemed necessary) and addressing the behaviour through a number of activities e.g. talking to the individuals involved, circle time, assemblies or during PSE.

5.28 As identified in the previous section, some EA guidance is directly linked to an anti-bullying model. It was generally noted in schools that whilst bullying is more widely recognised as a phenomenon which can and does exist, the presence of racism was less widely acknowledged. This can lead to non-reporting when there is no direct pupil involved, e.g. where derogatory terminology has been used between classmates during discussions. It was also noted that the presence of ethnic minority pupils was generally a key element for most RI to be considered. This reduces the potential for schools to identify the wide range of RIs that can occur, even where there are no minority ethnic pupils attending the school.

5.29 With the exception of two schools, most guidance or information to parents did not include reference to EA or school policy on RIs. The effect of this was to leave potentially fraught conversations until there was a crisis point in which parents had to become involved. In these moments of heightened tensions, it is not the best time to have a discussion on attitudes to racism and racist behaviour. Therefore the on-going management of parental awareness and involvement appears to be an issue which requires further consideration in schools.

5.30 Most pupils were clear about the steps they would take in reporting any general incident. In secondary schools they would often go to guidance staff although there was more reluctance to report amongst secondary pupils and a reliance on their peers to support them. In primary schools the pupils seemed confident in approaching their teachers about any incident.

5.31 Specific support to pupils who had experienced RIs was not very evident. However, some schools, particularly secondary schools, often had a range of support mechanisms that they could access to carry out follow up work with the victim or the perpetrator, e.g. guidance teachers, children services workers, or buddy schemes.

5.32 In primary schools the additional resources to support pupils were less obvious. Where schools had access to bilingual support teachers, this was greatly valued but their time in the school was often limited to a couple of hours per week. So, in general, support in primary schools generally came from classroom teachers and assistants.

Barriers to Addressing Racist Incidents

5.33 There was a host of challenges that impacted on how racist behaviour and recording incidents were handled. The staff and pupils highlighted many of these issues which are detailed in table 5.4, overleaf, and have been grouped under the following headings:

• ambiguity / lack of awareness of process;
• disincentives to record/report;
• process barriers;
• other.

5.34 The participants in the case studies felt that most of these barriers and challenges could be addressed with a combination of more robust support and guidance from the EA, a clear steer from key organisations like Learning Teaching Scotland ( LTS) and HMIe and a reliable source of practical advice and teaching materials. These comments are further examined later in this section.

The Anti Racist Website Toolkit: Educating for Race Equality - a Toolkit for Scottish Teachers

5.35 All head teachers and their teaching staff were asked about their awareness and use of this toolkit. The majority of the teaching staff were unaware of it and as a result had never used it. Where there was a level of awareness (11 head/teachers within six schools) this was often because the discussions around the case study had alerted head teachers and their staff to this resource and they had accessed the toolkit as part of their preparation.

5.36 There were, however, four exceptions. One EA had heavily promoted the tool to schools and encouraged use of the toolkit within the school environment so three head teachers had accessed the resource but could not remember if it related to a specific reason. Another deputy head teacher had looked at it when it was first launched and found the information useful in assisting them to understand the legal context and in the early days of developing policies but had felt that they now required " something more advanced which the website doesn't offer".

Reference and Supporting Materials

5.37 Teachers relied on a range of materials to support their understanding of race equality and the teaching of anti-racist education in the classroom and preventative approaches to racist behaviour. This varied in each school and was generally influenced by:

• the services available locally, e.g. in one area some schools accessed materials from a One World Centre;
• the level of support from the EA;
• the level of awareness of particular members of staff.

5.38 Materials had been sourced from internet searches, purchasing products from England e.g.Throwing Stones¹⁷ or from responding to targeted marketing of particular books like the Essential Articles Series ¹⁸. Eight schools had been involved with Show Racism the Red Card¹⁹ and found that a useful campaign because of the links to football teams and interest that pupils had in the sport. Therefore this was felt to offer a very real and relevant context.

5.39 The CERES-produced Race Equality Audit for Schools²⁰ was cited as a useful tool for assessing the appropriateness of current resources and five schools appeared to be using this resource to help them to develop their school's plan for addressing race equality.

5.40 One teacher had accessed information on the One Scotland Many Cultures²¹ website and several teachers mentioned the recent HMIe publication Promoting Race Equality; Making it Happen²² and were aware of, but did not use the HGIOS Inclusion and Equality document.

5.41 Across most school settings there was no real evidence that schools had at their disposal a wide range of resources, tools and techniques to address race equality education. Many of the materials which did exist were not tailored to the local context.

Future Support and Assistance

5.42 Most teachers recognised the need for more support to build up their expertise and confidence in this area.

5.43 There were a number of common responses about the form that future assistance could take. Teachers frequently noted that 'time' was an issue in dealing with anti-racist education, suggesting that this was still an 'add-on' to the curriculum. More resources was also a popular response and the specifics of these included:

• teaching materials for the different age ranges and different local settings ( e.g. all-white schools, rural areas) that focused on anti-racist education;
• robust guidance on dealing with incidents with practical examples that gives staff an understanding of racism and how it manifests itself, while equipping them with the confidence to recognise incidents and address them effectively;
• a guide to existing resources that gives some indication of the quality of the materials so that teachers can make an informed choice;
• a stock take of the range of guidance, advice and curriculum materials available from LTS
• increased opportunities to identify and share good practice in schools across EA areas;
• dedicated resources for race equality and equalities more generally;
• clarity from HMIe about expectations during inspections and their involvement in following up and monitoring progress;
• awareness-raising sessions and practical guidance ( e.g. basic information like acceptable terminology) for all school staff.

5.44 Two teachers also proposed that a CPD module on anti-racist education would be a useful option for teachers, rather than the one-off approach delivered during in-service training.

Case Studies with Education Authorities

5.45 Interviews were held with the named equality contacts within seven EA areas.

5.46 The discussions were informative and re-affirmed the different approaches taken across EAs that had already been highlighted in the analysis of the guidance documents. The seven interviews revealed very diverse pictures in terms of the level of resource, support, knowledge and the commitment from senior management to race equality work. Some of these differences are captured in the case study examples.

5.47 A wider issue persists across EAs in relation to the number of recorded RIs. Due to a lack of credibility regarding the identification and recording of all RIs, it is clear that the annual numbers of incidents collated by the EAs are not offering a realistic overview or a reliable evidence base by which schools or EAs can take forward the work on the anti-racist agenda.

5.48 This approach to the race equality agenda and the focus of the EA was generally reflected within school practice in related localities - although sometimes there were contradictory messages coming from some EAs and their schools, for example, differences about the 'official' and 'unofficial' approach to recording incidents. This brings into question, at least in some EAs, the credibility of the EA guidance.

5.49 The total number of RIs recorded across EAs ranged from four in one authority to 135 in another. However, the accuracy of this data is questionable; on more than one occasion the total number provided by the EA was less than the sum of the individual number of incidents supplied by the handful of schools visited in the EA area.

5.50 EA contacts identified similar types of barriers to recording incidents that school staff had reported. These were:

• resources;
• lack of understanding;
• lack of confidence amongst teaching staff;
• 'no problem here' culture;
• lack of regular exposure to this area of work.

5.51 Some EAs chased up non-reporting schools and analysed incident data regularly to look for trends and patterns whereas others did none of this. With regard to publishing results of monitoring, which is a requirement of EAs under the legislation, there was the same variety in response. Some do not release the figures at all, some report in committee documents that are in the public domain, and two publish the data collectively with their external partners.

5.52 EA contacts made some suggestions for future support and guidance and these centred on:

• increasing staff confidence for example, through training materials and CPD modules;
• clear and consistent guidance with simplified forms;
• greater inter-authority working to share expertise and good practice;
• critical role of HMIe in encouraging, supporting and monitoring progress;
• better access to 'experts', e.g.CRE, CERES and others delivering this work.

5.53 In general, the EA contacts recognised the strengths and weaknesses of their individual approaches and welcomed the development of future resources that would assist them and their schools to effectively address racist behaviour and deliver anti-racist education in the classroom, while helping them to meet their legal obligations.

Summary

5.54 The key issues from the case studies include:

• further clarity needed on what constitutes an RI;
• the disconnection between the mechanism for recording incidents and the action to address them;
• clear evidence of under-reporting of RIs;
• indications that EA guidance is known but not always followed;
• no obvious correlation and analysis of data at EA level or feedback to schools;
• an apparent absence of on-going management of parental awareness and involvement in relation to school policy on tackling racism;
• a range of barriers that are in place which appear to prevent schools from engaging effectively with the process of identifying, recording and reporting RIs. These are classified as disincentives, process barriers and ambiguity/lack of awareness;
• the majority of teachers were unaware of the anti-racist toolkit website and so had never used it;
• a general lack of purposeful and relevant learning materials within schools which had been tailored/adapted for local use;
• a lack of reliability of annual aggregated analysis of RIs (where this occurred) at EA level due to likely under-reporting across schools and in some cases the absence of figures from some schools;
• teachers identifying a number of areas for future support which include robust guidance, clarity from HMIe, opportunities to identify good practice, and access to "experts".

« Previous | Contents | Next »