« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
3. About the evaluation
The overall aim of the pilot projects was to learn more about RP in school settings and to establish whether a restorative approach could support schools to manage conflict in relationships within establishments and thereafter impact on class climate and school ethos. The specific objectives were:
- to identify the training and support which staff feel is required to enable them to implement the initiatives effectively;
- to explore the different situations, contexts and areas of the curriculum where the new approaches are employed;
- to analyse the ways in which different participants (school staff, pupils and parents) respond to the innovative approaches and the conditions which appear to produce beneficial outcomes;
- to identify the characteristics of schools, staff or others which contribute to positive or negative outcomes; and
- to identify the support required from local authorities to promote and support school-level implementation.
The design of this evaluation forged new ground in a number of ways. It involved working with staff in the three LAs to clarify the nature and goals of the pilot initiatives and develop a methodology for the collaborative evaluation, in which participants, as well as researchers, played a critical part. Data collection involved:
- Interviews with a range of LA and school staff
- Interviews, individual and group, with pupils
- School staff survey
- Pupil survey
- Observation of a range of meetings, activities and lessons
- Documentary analysis of school and LA policies
- Participation in a range of Scottish Executive, LA and school based meetings
- Analysis of national and school statistical data
- Focus group meetings with school and LA staff
Key staff members in each school were interviewed on a number of occasions over the period of the pilot. In summary, across the 18 schools, we interviewed Headteachers (17); members of School Management Team/Principal Teachers (43); class/subject teachers (48); non-teaching support staff (30), other inter-agency staff (12), and educational psychologists (12). About 400 individual interviews took place with staff in schools. We also met directly with 138 primary pupils and 93 secondary pupils, either in groups or in individual interview. We met with 12 parents of primary pupils and 19 parents of secondary pupils. Each school was visited at least 5 times and findings at each stage of the research were fed back and discussed with key staff.
Evidence from the range of data was considered on a school by school basis, in order to build up a broad picture of progress in each school. Schools began from very different starting points, and had quite varied aims and strategies. Conclusions about each school therefore relate to what they had achieved, in terms of their own context, concerns and priorities.
Although the three authorities in the pilot took different approaches to implementation, there were common ideas and some shared training. It is important to emphasise again that there was a variety of practices, with different levels of formality, and that many of the above terms for practice (cf. Section 2 above) are used flexibly in different contexts, as practitioners made the practices real and labeled them in their own context and settings.
In terms of the evaluation exercise the two major themes addressed were:
1. How did RP develop in the pilot schools?
2. Were RP perceived by participants as supportive and positive?
To reflect the distinct differences in the approaches adopted by the educational sectors in the pilot, this evaluation will report separately on the development and impact on primary/special establishments and the secondary schools involved.
« Previous | Contents | Next »