The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2.7 Feasibility of peer education in RSE

2.7.1 Advisers' perspective

The Advisers who were interviewed saw no reason why peer education should not be applied to RSE. They recommended, however, that it should not be developed as a single issue peer education programme, but instead covered within a programme that dealt with a range of issues to do with risk assessment and personal safety. Using an "umbrella approach" rather than issue based would allow RSE to be covered as one of many issues.

It was agreed that, to succeed, peer education RSE should be linked to existing programmes, rather than developed as a discrete one issue package.

2.7.2. Teachers' perspective

When asked about extending peer education to road safety, teacher interviewees thought that peer educators were almost certain to have recent useful experiences and would understand the problems and concerns of those being educated. Training for pupils was thought to be essential. Training for RS topics might well involve outside speakers such as RSOs. Resources would be required and these should, if possible, remain at the school.

In two schools, teachers felt that it might be difficult to include RSE as a standard part of the peer education schemes, as what was covered was voluntary, and the school could not oblige pupils to cover RSE if they did not want to. However, the teacher interviewees said that they would be willing to try to include RSE in the programme, if there was some formal structure to the road safety element, and training could be given. This would work as long as it was recognised that the course was voluntary and that peer educators should be able to choose what they covered. One teacher interviewee noted that it would also require good resources and training to be made available to the peer educators, and should involve someone from outwith the school carrying out the training.

2.7.3 RSOs' perspective

Feedback from the RSOs interviewed in connection with this research was largely positive. Many RSOs thought a peer education scheme would benefit both educator and "pupil", as there would be close relationships developed and pupils would speak the same language. If localised RS messages were used it was felt that these would more relevant to pupils. It was felt that peer education would allow more RSE coverage in schools. Potentially, there would be a larger audience for RSE and participating senior pupils would be more likely to set a good example. A small number of RSOs said that strength of the scheme was the possibility of identifying local road safety problems, through the peer educators, which could then be addressed in individual areas.

However, RSOs had a mixed perspective on the feasibility of introducing a peer education scheme into secondary schools. Two RSOs considered there was a good possibility for introducing peer education in RSE in secondary schools. Six RSOs thought the idea worthwhile and five would like to see a scheme introduced, all five had considerable doubts about the feasibility of sustaining a peer education scheme in secondary schools.

Doubts were attributed to lack of time available, exam and curriculum pressures in addition to the nature of road safety issues selected. One RSO was unsure of the likely success of such a scheme, mainly because of the problems of obtaining access to pupils in secondary schools. This RSO found it was possible to meet only with S1 pupils for transition work S5/S6 pupils for driver courses. Another RSO thought that if some relevant peer education was already taking place, it might be feasible to slot RSE in. One RSO stated that it would also depend on how the older ones were educated to put things across. In this region the main accident problem was with S1/2, so peer education would be most appropriate for this group.

The time commitment required of RSOs could be a problem in supporting a peer education scheme in road safety. One RSO said such a scheme would be expensive in terms of RSO time, as she foresaw visiting all schools individually as part of such a scheme, possibly two days or so a term per school. Two RSOs stated that RSO commitment would depend largely on the objectives. One RSO said that at the inception of a scheme quite a bit of time would be needed, as it would be essential to set up the scheme so that it was sustainable. RSO time during the operation would depend on uptake. As the time involved was envisaged to be as a facilitator/co-ordinator and at times a 'trouble-shooter', it was not anticipated to make great demands on RSOs.

Concerns that RSOs had about covering RSE through peer education are listed below:

• One RSO considered that the quality of peer educator 'teaching' might not be as good as with a qualified teacher/ RSO, and some teachers might perceive some loss of control.
• Four RSOs stated that any resources would have to be very good.
• One RSO thought the scheme might be more difficult to organise in secondary due to movement of pupils between classes and different subject teachers.
• Seven RSOs thought a weakness would be the problem of getting older pupils interested in taking part - once they leave primary many think they knew all that there was to know about RS, while some fear making a fool of themselves and not appearing 'cool'.
• Two RSOs raised the issue of RSO time: if peer education involved extra work for RSOs who are already stretched.

2.7.4 Time allocation

Nearly all RSOs estimated likely demands on their time should they become involved in a peer education scheme, and this varied through: a month's work at the scheme's inception, then one full day per week for a year, to a total commitment of 0.5 days per school. In addition, one RSO thought constant retraining would be necessary as pupils moved up the school and that the actual amount of training would depend on role of peer educator. If this role was complex a lot of training would be required, and pupils should follow a standardised programme.

Time allocation for peer education RSE has proved difficult to quantify, but it is an aspect of peer education that should be considered carefully before any commitment is made by the RSS to introduce peer education.

2.7.5 Potential links with JRSO work already going on in primary schools

Different viewpoints emerged in discussion with RSOs. There was a view that peer education in secondary schools could be seen as an extension /adaptation of the JRSO scheme in primary schools, but that this relationship could prove problematic. It was felt that links between road safety work in primary schools and secondary schools could be counter productive, as the involvement of secondary pupils might take away responsibility from primary pupils. Secondary pupils might not like to think that they were covering the same ground in RSE in secondary school as they had done in primary. One interviewee's (minority) perspective was that as the JRSO scheme in his area had not been supported and pushed forward as much as it should have been, any effort should be put into consolidating the JRSO scheme before moving on to introducing a RS peer education scheme for secondary schools.

2.7.6 Training and support required for participants in peer education schemes

RSOs commented on training requirements for themselves and other participants (teachers and pupils) in the peer education process. Teachers and pupils commented only on pupil requirements. It was interesting that none of the teachers interviewed in connection with this research considered that training should be provided for teachers themselves. This suggests that teachers might act as gate keepers of a peer education scheme in road safety, allowing RSE to be covered, but would not be willing to carry out training or support such a scheme once it was up and running. The suggestions of all interviewees are set out below.

RSOs' requirements

For some RSOs it was difficult to estimate their own training and support requirements, as there were so many unknowns. These unknowns included the extent of any involvement and support from local Education departments, whether there would be a central administrator such as RSS. Consideration would also have to be given to how would any scheme would fit with local policy and work already being undertaken.

It was agreed that while most RSOs feel comfortable at primary level, some training would probably be required for a secondary school scheme - possibly a one-day seminar. Suggested inputs involved at least one full day's training, possibly backed up by a follow-up meeting once the scheme was up and running, so RSOs could discuss progress. It was also suggested that the materials should be changed/updated/revised on an annual basis. This would require ongoing work at RSS so that different work could be available each year. It was mooted that there should be an opportunity to adapt resources for local areas.

Teaching Staff

RSOs reviewed the training needs that they perceived teachers would have in conjunction with introducing peer education for secondary pupils.

It was felt that quite a bit of training for secondary school teachers would be advisable because little general RSE was done at most secondary schools. Suggested means of training secondary teachers included a general PowerPoint training presentation for teachers, which could be amended according to local requirements. Estimated training time commitments varied, but it was felt that in rural areas, there would be greater demands on RSO time, because of the need to train teachers in their own schools rather than draw them together in cluster groups. In some areas, it might be necessary to call on outside help to train teachers.

Pupils

Most RSOs agreed that pupils should attend a training session given by RS staff, as it was important to make sure that correct messages were given. One interviewee estimated a whole day, but this could be modified depending on numbers and role. It would be essential that peer educators were good role models. It was also suggested that pupil educators undertake a number of courses e.g. teaching techniques, communication skills etc. It was considered that these would also have the advantage of looking good on CVs of older pupils.

A minority RSO view was that teachers should carry out the training of peer educators, but questioned if one could rely on teachers. All RSOs recognised that this would require a lot of time going to individual schools and suggested that perhaps a distance learning approach could be considered.

Pupils themselves had a number of ideas about the training that they would like to receive as peer educators in road safety. One pupil suggested that road safety should be tied in with drugs and alcohol education, and that pupils should be consulted on, and involved in, the development of a safety resource that could be used by peer educators.

All pupil interviewees in one school thought it was important that peer educators who wanted to cover road safety should be given one day's training from a road safety expert in a location outwith the school. All participants said that they would like facts that they could use. Videos and items for discussion groups would be useful, but they also felt it would be important for all participants in road safety by peer education to have some type of "hands-on" input. They would like to have material that would make pupils care about themselves and other road users.

These pupils recommended that the road safety peer educators should have follow-up workshops to enable them to talk about their experiences, update their skills, and help develop a resource for other users.

In another school, a group of peer educators said that they would like to include road safety in the topics that they covered. They felt that to be effective, road safety peer education would have to be dramatic, and could include:

• Videos or witness testimony of real accidents.
• Reminders of road safety rules in real contexts.
• Case studies of irresponsible road behaviour and consequences that could be discussed by groups of pupils.
• A video based on flashbacks that a road accident victim has from his/her hospital bed, with accompanying resources for discussion points.

Training should be given to help them cover road safety effectively.

In the other two schools in which pupils were interviewed, S6 pupils had enjoyed their experience as peer educators, and felt that they had developed a good relationship with the younger pupils, especially the younger ones who had behavioural problems. They had enjoyed the training workshop provided and felt that they and the younger pupils had benefitted from the experience. They believed that road safety could be covered within their schemes, as long as they were given input on what to cover and how to cover it.

The results of these interviews suggest that teachers and pupils would expect some RS specific input to be given to the pupil educators themselves by a RS specialist. This specialist is most likely to be a RSO, and while time commitment would vary from region to region, this would mean additional demands on RSO time.

2.7.7 Expected response and take-up from schools and pupils

All teacher interviewees indicated a willingness to include RS in existing peer education schemes. This suggests willingness in those who are already involved in peer education to accommodate another topic in the programme.

RSOs gave some thought to the possibility of introducing peer education to their schools where peer education schemes did not necessarily exist, and there was no existing structure for a peer education scheme to "piggy-back" on to.

Some RSOs felt that uptake would depend on the marketing of the scheme and agreed that the success of any peer education scheme would depend on timing and any accommodations that could be made to timetabling. It would also depend on having a 'champion' in each school (the liaison teacher or HT) and a 'champion Adviser/other member of a Local Authority Education Department. One stated that secondary school response was less predictable than primary. It was often difficult to ensure making the best initial contact in a secondary school, where so much of the success of setting up schemes depended on getting a keen member of staff. Several RSOs, recognising that the workload at many schools is considerable and existing commitments might preclude taking on new projects, predicted that take-up would vary a lot from area to area. A minority view was that it would be hard to get a good response from secondary schools in one area. It was felt that secondary schools liked pre driver, but did not want much more and that even transition work materials were little used now. While secondary schools might take RS plays, there was often little real commitment to any work undertaken by the school pre or post the theatre production.

2.7.8 Introduction and management of road safety peer education schemes

RSOs were asked about implementation and management issues implicit in the introduction of road safety peer education schemes in secondary schools.

It was felt that implementation would depend on the content, context and scale of the scheme.

The first stages might be achieved by running courses for teachers to introduce pupil courses. This could be supplemented by having a website with live on-line dialogues, through which information could be added as required. In addition, it was suggested that a pilot be carried out of three or four schools in an area, for the development of a programme similar to that used for JRSO. It was also recommended that strong guidelines would be needed, and ownership of the scheme must lie with the educators. Teachers should select peer educators and RSOs would train teachers and peer educators together

One concern expressed by a number of RSOs was the anticipated problem of getting secondary schools interested and motivated, mainly due to pressures of curriculum. To counteract this, these RSOs would like to see a RS pupil committee/council set up and resource packs provided centrally by RSS and capable of being adapted to their own area. Sources of support were identified as S5/6 pupils who could identify problems, then work with guidance staff to ensure scheme ran well. In addition, it was suggested that the involvement of local Education departments might be useful, as this would help legitimise RSE peer education to schools and teachers.

The feedback on implementation issues varied between RSOs and involved many players. Teachers and schools managers, local authority education departments and pupils were all seen to have a role to play in the introduction of any peer education scheme.

2.7.9 Support for peer education schemes

It was felt that support would depend to a degree on uptake, and that RSOs could provide resources including human resources where possible. If peer education were successful, there would be less need for hands on RSO input. RSOs would be a point of contact, could oversee training of new participants and could keep records. Support mechanisms might draw from those used in the JRSO scheme, but it was felt that there might be serious time issues for RSOs if another similar scheme were to be introduced. Suggestions for pupil support included a help-line; resources, advice and help as necessary and it was felt that regular contact with peer educators would be important. Some form of accreditation/certification for pupil educators, so that they would have something to show for their work, was seen as valuable.

2.7.10 Summary of findings

This section summarises the findings above.

• Peer education was most commonly found in Health and Sex Education programmes
• Road safety could be taught through similar approaches to Health Education
• Peer education was found to be hard to evaluate
• Peer educators were found to benefit more from the peer education process than were the targets of the peer education programme
• Training and appropriate resources were identified as the two main requirements of a peer education programme.
• Where possible, young people should be involved in the development of resources
• Support networks for participants, either virtual or based on real interaction, were important to the success of peer education.
• Peer education is labour-intensive and there is no evidence to suggest that it is any more effective for the target group of pupils than conventional, teacher-led forms of education.

« Previous | Contents | Next »