The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

APPENDIX 2

Restorative Practices: a pilot study in three Scottish local education authorities

Summary of staff survey

Executive Summary

This survey forms part of an evaluation of the Scottish Executive pilot project to introduce Restorative Practices in eighteen schools in three Scottish local authorities. A questionnaire was devised that aimed to survey staff attitudes to discipline and ethos in each of the schools involved in the evaluation. The questionnaire also explored the respondents knowledge and experience of Restorative Practices.

It was intended to use the data gathered to establish a baseline for further work in each school, and also to triangulate with the qualitative data gathered through observation and face-to-face interviews with school staff. Questionnaires were sent to all staff in the schools teaching and non-teaching, with a requested return date of April 2005. A total of 1397 questionnaires were distributed to the schools Of these 627 were returned, which represents an overall response rate of 45%. The response rates for the different types of schools differed with primary schools having an overall rate of 56% and secondary schools 42%. There are therefore limits to any generalisations which can be drawn from this data. The findings do however, offer a 'snapshot' of staff attitudes to, and understandings of, Restorative Practices.

Summary of findings

The analysis compared and contrasted views of staff in the eighteen schools within the different local authorities, and between primary and secondary staff. A distinction was also made within these two categories between teaching and non-teaching staff. Gender differences were examined in the secondary sample only, due to the small number of male respondents in the primary sample. Age factors were also analysed but this did not include the 60+ age group as the number of respondents in this group was very low. The key findings are summarised below.

Inclusion

A large majority of respondents across the schools agreed that their school was inclusive of all pupils, that pupils were expected to work hard and that the school recognised a range of pupil achievements. They also felt that new pupils were helped to settle in, that it was necessary to punish pupils sometimes and, that parents/carers were both valued and welcomed in the school. The numbers disagreeing with these statements ranged from 0% to 9%.

However, there were differences between primary and secondary staff in relation to these statements. Secondary staff were more likely to 'agree to some extent', while significantly more primary staff stated they 'definitely agree'. Primary staff were thus emphasising to a greater extent that their school was inclusive, that pupils of all kinds were generally well supported and expected to work hard, and that parents and carers were welcomed.

Academic Achievement

There was greater variation in the responses when staff were asked about pupils achieving their academic potential, and if the behaviour of pupils and their attendance was good. Issues around bullying and exclusion also showed a wider range of responses, as did those in relation to support for and communication amongst staff.

Bullying

Staff, particularly teachers, in Fife were most likely to indicate that bullying was an issue and that the exclusion rate in their schools was too high. This contrasts with staff in Highland who indicated that bullying was not an issue. Staff in Fife were also most likely to state that exclusion rates were too high. However, these differences have to be treated with caution. An indication that bullying is an issue may not indicate a higher rate of bullying but that staff are more aware of the issues around bullying and exclusion.

Whilst there was greater variation, the difference between primary and secondary staff was still in evidence. Primary staff were more likely agree or agree strongly with positive statements about pupil characteristics or behaviours than secondary staff; and are more likely to disagree with negatively worded statements, such as 'pupils do not achieve their academic potential in this school', than secondary staff.

Restorative Practice

In relation to questions specific to Restorative Practices, a far greater proportion of primary staff indicated that they understood what was meant by the term, had had training and that they used RP effectively. Staff in all settings indicated that they would like further training.

Interagency working

When asked about inter-agency cooperation, staff in Fife and Highland indicated this to be more problematic than did staff in North Lanarkshire. Overall a larger number of secondary staff indicated that this was a problematic area. However, the question about inter-agency working also attracted a relatively large number of responses in the 'need more information' column. This could suggest that there are more staff in secondary schools who are not familiar and have not come into contact with inter-agency working.

School and community

There are no differences between the authorities when asked about the school having good relations with the community; however, once again, there is a primary/secondary split with primary staff indicating a more positive attitude.

Gender analysis

The gender analysis included only secondary staff as there were very few male respondents in the primary sample. A greater number of female teachers indicated that they would like further training in using RP. Male teachers were significantly more likely to definitely agree with the statement that it is sometimes necessary to punish pupils.

Age-based analysis

The analysis of age factors did not include respondents over 60 as there were very few respondents in this category. Overall there were few differences between the different age groups. The main differences were that the age group 41-50 were least likely to feel well supported (statement 11). There was also a trend, though not a significant difference, showing that this age group (41-50) were least likely to feel that communication amongst staff was good. It is likely that this group contained a larger number of unpromoted class teachers and that the older age group (51-60) contained more promoted staff who may be more inclined to say that they are well supported.

The responses from the special school were in general similar to those of primary schools.

The number of respondents ticking the 'need more information' was low for the statements where the respondent was likely to have a direct experience or awareness of the issue, such as 'pupils are expected to work hard in this school'. The numbers using this category increased when questions related to areas where formal statistics may be gathered, e.g. in relation to numbers of exclusions. There was a sizeable proportion of respondents who used this category when asked about aspects of Restorative Practices. This could indicate a lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic.

Summary of open ended comments

The majority of open-ended comments related to Restorative Practices and approaches and they ranged across a number of key themes. In general the comments mirror the findings from the quantitative analysis.

• There were comments from both primary and secondary staff on the value (or otherwise) of RP with the most negative coming from secondary staff.
• There are a number of comments with regards to training, several requesting further training or commenting on incomplete training.
• A number of the comments suggest that RP is time consuming and that this is difficult for teachers who are already under considerable pressure.
• In general, only secondary schools have commented on issues around the need for better ways of managing discipline. Some of these comments also include a mention of poor support from senior managers and poor skills in some of those managing discipline.
• Comments in relation to inclusion often referred to the difficulty of including children with poor behaviour.

Aims and methods

The aim of the questionnaire was to survey staff attitudes to discipline and ethos in each of the 18 schools involved in the evaluation. It was intended to use the data gathered to establish a baseline for further work in each school, and also to triangulate with the qualitative data gathered through observation and face-to-face interviews with school staff.

Sample

The questionnaire was sent to all staff, teaching and non-teaching, in all 18 schools. A total of 1397 questionnaires were distributed to the schools.

Method

Permission was sought from all three local authorities before approaching schools. Head teachers were then informed in writing that a questionnaire would be coming out to all staff. They were asked to alert us to any issues particular to their school that might affect timeous completion of the questionnaire. One school was initially reluctant to be involved in this part of the evaluation as they felt that they were at such an early stage of development and the school had other more pressing concerns. After discussion with this head teacher, however, the school agreed to participate, and a slightly later return date for returns was agreed. No concerns were raised by any other school.

Schools provided a full list of current staff and then each questionnaire envelope was individually addressed to each member of staff in each school. These were sent out in a bulk mailing to each school's Restorative Practices co-ordinator at the end of February 2005 with the request that they be completed by the end of the Easter term, a date which varied across the three authorities. Each envelope contained one questionnaire, a covering letter and an envelope for the completed questionnaire to ensure confidentiality. A small number of additional questionnaires were included with each 'bundle' to take account of very recent staff changes. It was suggested to schools that they provide a labelled box in the staffroom for returns, and although we were not in a position to monitor this, most schools seemed to use this approach. The envelopes were then either collected by a member of the evaluation team, or returned by post.

All schools completed the questionnaire as requested although some reminders and further contact was required to ensure that all returns were received.

A total of 627 questionnaires were returned. This represents a response rate of 45%. Whilst this is not an unacceptable rate for a survey administered in this manner, it was disappointing as the questionnaires had been addressed to individual members of staff. Non-response is normally not random (Oppenheim, 1966) and in this survey it is possible that those who did not respond are less interested in, and possibly have a negative attitude towards restorative practices. There are differences in the response rates between the authorities and between different types of schools as can be seen in Table 1 (see Appendix 1 for response rates for individual schools). North Lanarkshire had the highest overall response rate at 52%, with the other two authorities having rates of 42%. It is worth noting though that North Lanarkshire included a special school that had the highest overall response rate (78%) and that this has skewed the response rate. There are notable differences in response rates between secondary (42%) and primary/special schools with the latter having an overall higher rate (56%). It is not possible to say why this difference has occurred; however, factors such as the size of the school and the extent to which there is a single focus point within the school where staff meet may well impact on the return rate. In addition, the extent to which the issues that the questionnaire dealt with was seen as central to the policies of the school and the timing of the administration could also have influenced the extent to which staff responded. The low response rate for secondary school indicates the need for caution in interpretation of the data from these schools.

Table 1. Restorative Practice Questionnaire Returns

Characteristics of the sample (for LEA and Schools - see interim report)

Staff Characteristics

Out of the 627 staff that responded 146 were based in primary schools, 21 in special schools, representing 27% of the sample and 457 (73%) in secondary schools. There were 488 full-time members of staff (78%) and 107 part-time (17%); 32 respondents (5%) did not show whether they were full-time or part-time. The sample consisted of 437 teaching staff and 183 non-teaching staff with 7 (1%) missing responses in this category. Teaching staff thus represents just under 70% of the sample; non-teaching staff 29%.

In terms of length of time in teaching, 65% had been in teaching for over 10 years, 15% between 5 and 10 years with only 13% having been in teaching for less than five years. Seven percent of staff did not respond to this question. The majority (41%) of respondents had been in their present post for less than five years with 26% having been in post between 5 and 10 years, and the same percentage had been in post for over 10 years. Forty respondents did not state how long they had been in post.

The most common age range was 41-50 with 36% falling into this band, the next largest group were those aged 51-60 at 27%. Less than 14% were aged between 20 and 30, with 18% being aged between 31 and 40. Less than 4% were aged over 60. Twelve respondents did not indicate their age. The majority of respondents were female, with 74% in this category and 24% male. Fifteen people did not respond to this question.

Questionnaire Results

Staff were asked to respond to a set of statements, indicating whether they 'definitely agree', 'agree', 'disagree' or 'need more information'. These statements reflected different aspects of inclusive and restorative practices (See Appendix 2 for full list of statements) and were based on the Inclusion Index (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). The responses in each of these categories are shown for each authority as are the number of missing or spoilt responses. All the missing/spoilt responses have been left out of the statistical analysis. In statements were there were low responses in the 'disagree' and/or 'need more information' these have also been left out of the analysis. The one special school has also been excluded from the statistical school due to low numbers and potential lack of representativeness.

Each of the statements is analysed separately below and the responses for teaching and non-teaching staff are analysed separately. The main analysis focuses on differences between authorities and types of schools; however, gender and age differences have also been examined. In the case of gender only secondary staff has been included in the statistical analysis as the majority (over 90%) of all primary staff that responded are female.

In addition to responding to the nineteen statements, staff were also provided with a box for any additional comments that they wished to make in relation to the questions in the questionnaire. These statements are analysed separately according to themes.

Out of the 627 responses 7 staff failed to indicate whether they were teaching or non-teaching, the analysis is therefore based on 620 responses, 437 of these teaching staff and 183 non-teaching staff. Percentages as well as actual numbers are shown for each category. Percentage figures are rounded to the nearest whole number which means that total percentage may be slightly above or below 100%. The table showing the different authority responses for each statement shows the total break of responses, in the following table only those response categories with larger number of responses are included.

1. This school is inclusive of all pupils

Table 2: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the 437 teaching staff, 5 responded that they needed further information, and 7 responses were spoilt or missing; of the 183 non-teaching staff 5 felt they needed further information and 15 responses were spoilt or missing. The majority of both teaching and non-teaching staff felt that their school was inclusive, with only a small percentage disagreeing. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overall responses: This school is inclusive of all pupils

Table 3: Authority: breakdown of responses 'This school is inclusive of all pupils'

There were no major differences between the three authorities. The statistical analysis includes only 'definitely agree' and 'agree' due to small numbers in the other response categories. Although the majority of staff in all authorities do feel that their school is inclusive, there is a marginally significant difference between the authorities, _ ² (2) = 6.896, p<0.032; North Lanarkshire is less likely to 'definitely agree' than the other two regions.

Table 4: Type of school: breakdown of responses

Staff, teaching and non-teaching, in secondary schools were more likely to just agree with this statement or disagree with it than those in primary schools. This difference is statistically significant, ? ² (1) = 22.865, p<0.000 for teaching staff and ? ² (1) = 8.405, p<0.004. However, if the low response rates in some of the secondary schools were due to those not fully committed to inclusive practices declining to respond then this difference could well be greater with a larger number of responses in the disagree category.

There is a small significant difference in relation to age, ? ² (3) = 10.025, p<0.018 for teaching staff only. This difference is mainly due to the age groups 31-40 and 41-50 being more likely just to agree with this statement rather than definitely agreeing. There are no gender differences in the responses to this statement.

2. Pupils are expected to work hard in this school

Table 5: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the 627 responses to this question 3 fell into the 'need more information' category and 3 were either spoilt/missing or non-applicable. These have been left out of the calculations below.

Table 6: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Pupils are expected to work hard in this school'

Whilst the numbers disagreeing with this statement was slightly higher in Highland the difference is not statistically significant.

Table 7: Type of school: breakdown of responses

However, there is a difference again between types of schools, between those that 'definitely agree' and those that 'agree to some extent' ? ² (1) = 33.403, p < 0.000 but for teaching staff only. These are the only to response categories included in the statistical analysis.

There are no statistically significant differences between younger and older staff or between the different genders for this statement.

3. Pupils do not achieve their academic potential in this school

Table 8: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

437 teaching staff responses were recorded, out of these 11 wanted further information and 9 were either spoilt or missing. This represents 5% of the sample. 183 non-teaching staff responses included 26 'need more information' and four missing or spoilt which forms 16% of the sample.

Table 9: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Pupils do not achieve their academic potential in this school'

There is no significant difference between the staff in the three authorities.

Table 10: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a considerable difference between teaching staff in the different types of schools, ? ² (2) = 40.970, p<0.000, and there is also a difference between non-teaching staff though this is less marked, ? ² (2) = 11.492, p<0.003. This analysis includes responses in the disagree category as well as the two first categories.

The analysis of differences between gender and age revealed no significant differences between either of these variables.

4. This school recognises a range of pupil achievements

Table 11: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of 437 teaching staff, 1 required more information and 2 returned missing responses. (99% responded). 183 non-teaching staff responded and out of those 3 were 'need more information' responses. Seven responses overall were either spoilt or missing.

Table 12: Authority: breakdown of responses 'This school recognises a range of pupil achievements

The majority of respondents either definitely agree or agree with this statement and this is the case for both teaching and non-teaching staff. Staff in North Lanarkshire are marginally more likely to definitely agree with this statement but the differences between the three authorities are not statistically significant.

Table 13: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a significant difference between types of school, both for teaching and non-teaching staff, ? ² (1) = 30,956, p< 0.000; ? ² (1) = 20.181, p< 0.000. This difference is in terms of those that 'definitely agree' and 'agree to some extent'. The numbers disagreeing with the statement are low though the percentage of staff in secondary schools is somewhat higher than in primary schools.

The analysis of gender and age differences in responses to this statement revealed no significant differences.

5. New pupils are helped to settle in here

Table 14: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the 437 teaching staff asked to respond 4 did not respond and 23 felt they required more information before the could respond; of 183 non-teaching staff 8 stated they needed more information and there was 1 missing, there were further 7 'non-applicable' responses. This statement attracted a higher number of 'need more information' responses than other statements and this should be borne in mind.

Table 15: Authority: breakdown of responses 'New pupils are helped to settle in here'

There is a statistically significant difference between teaching staff in the three different authorities, based on differences between 'definitely agree' and 'agree' responses, ? ² = 7.512 (2), p< 0.023. There is no corresponding difference between non-teaching staff. The main difference is between North Lanark/Highland and Fife with teaching staff in Fife more likely to only agree or to disagree with the statement.

Table 16: Type of school: breakdown of responses

Once again there is a significant difference between school types, ? ² (1) = 9.937, p< 0.002 for teaching staff; ? ² (1) = 17.775, p< 0.000 for non-teaching staff. Whilst only the first two response categories are included in the statistical analysis it should be noted that secondary staff have a higher percentage who disagree with this statement. The main difference is that primary staff are more likely to 'agree strongly' and not 'disagree' with the statement.

There are no significant differences between the male and female respondents or between the different age groups.

6. Bullying is not a major issue here

Table 17: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the 437 teaching staff asked to respond 10 did not respond and 21 felt they required more information before the could respond; of 183 non-teaching staff 9 stated they needed more information and there was 3 missing, there were further 7 'non-applicable' responses. This statement attracted a higher number of 'need more information' responses than other statements and this should be borne in mind.

Table 18: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Bullying is not a major issue here'

There is a statistically significant difference between the authorities when the first three response categories are included. Highland region, teaching and non-teaching, staff are most likely to state that bullying is not an issue in their area, staff in Fife are most likely to say that it is an issue, ? ² (4) = 32.959, p< 0.000 There is less of a difference between non-teaching staff but those in Fife and North Lanarkshire are more likely to disagree with the statement than staff in Highland, ? ² (4) = 10.894, p< 0.028.

Table 19: Type of school: breakdown of responses

The difference between types of schools is again statistically significant with a larger proportion of secondary staff disagreeing with the statement and a much smaller proportion 'definitely agreeing', ? ² (2) = 30.091, p< 0.000 for teaching staff and ? ² (2) = 18.308, p< 0.000 for non-teaching staff. The data from the one special school indicates that non-teaching staff may feel it is an issue for them; however, the numbers are very small so must be treated with caution.

The analysis of gender and age of the respondents showed no significant differences between male and female staff or between the different age groups.

7. The behaviour of pupils is generally good here

Table 20: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Of the 437 teaching staff in the sample, there were 12 responses that were either spoilt or missing; for non-teaching staff that number was 2.

Table 21: Authority: breakdown of responses 'The behaviour of pupils is generally good here'

There is a statistically significant difference between the authorities for teaching staff, ? ² (4) = 17.058, p< 0.002 but not for non-teaching staff. As for the previous question staff in Highland are most likely to 'definitely agree' or 'agree' with this statement. This analysis includes those in the 'definitely agree', 'agree to some extent' and 'disagree' categories.

Table 22: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There are statistically significant differences between types of school here for both teaching and non-teaching staff, ? ² (2) = 10.108, p< 0.006 and ? ² (2) = 11.273, p< 0.004. Primary staff are more likely to agree with this statement than secondary staff and staff in the special school, in particular are most likely to 'definitely agree' with this statement.

There were no significant differences between staff in the different age groups or between male and female teachers.

8. The exclusion rate is too high in this school

Table 23: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Of the 437 teaching staff a relatively high number, 41, responded with 'need more information' and 4 of the responses were either spoilt or missing; the corresponding figures for non-teaching staff was 25 and 7.

Table 24: Authority: breakdown of responses 'The exclusion rate is too high in this school

This analysis explores the first three response categories. It shows that the majority of teaching staff in all three authorities disagree with this statement, though those in Fife are more likely to agree to it (20% overall); the difference between the authorities is statistically significant for this group of respondents, ? ² (4) = 20.962, p<0.000. There is also a significant difference between non-teaching staff, ? ² (4) = 15.324, p<0.004.

Table 25: Type of school: breakdown of responses

Secondary teaching staff are somewhat more likely to agree with the statement that the exclusion rate is too high; however, there is no statistically significant difference. There is a significant difference between non-teaching staff in these two types of schools, ? ² (2) = 23.467, p<0.000. Secondary non-teaching staff are considerably more likely to feel that the exclusion rate is too high. Special school staff generally disagree with this statement.

There are no significant differences between the responses of male or female staff or between those from different age groups.

9. It is sometimes necessary to punish pupils

Table 26: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Of 437 teaching staff 11 felt they needed more information to respond to this statement, and three responses were either spoilt or missing. Among non-teaching staff there were 6 wanting more information and 3 responses that were spoilt or missing.

Table 27: Authority: breakdown of responses 'It is sometimes necessary to punish pupils'

There is a slight significant difference between teaching staff in the three authorities ? ² (2) = 7.962, p<0.019. The main differences lie between Highland on the one hand and North Lanarkshire and Fife on the other. Numbers in the 'disagree' category are too low to be included in the statistical calculation. The main difference is thus that Highland staff are less likely to 'definitely agree' with this statement. There is no significant difference between non-teaching staff in the three authorities. This analysis is based only on responses in the 'definitely agree' and 'agree to some extent' categories only.

Table 28: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a significant difference for both teaching and non-teaching staff with staff in secondary schools more likely to 'definitely agree' with this statement and those in primary staff more likely to 'agree' or 'disagree'. However, the numbers in the 'disagree' category are too low for inclusion in statistical analysis. For teaching staff there is a significant difference between 'definitely agree' and 'agree to some extent', ? ² (1) = 10.127, p<0.001; and for non-teaching staff ? ² (1) = 14.976, p<0.000.

There are no significant differences between respondents of the different age groups; however, there is a small significant difference between male and female secondary teachers. Male teachers are significantly more likely to 'definitely agree' with this statement than are female teachers, ? ² (1) = 4.055, p<0.044.

10. Attendance is not good at this school

Table 29: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of 437 teaching staff 35 felt they could not respond without further information and 4 responses were missing; 27 of the non-teaching staff stated that they required further information and 4 responses were missing.

Table 30: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Attendance is not good at this school'

This analysis includes the first three response categories. There is no difference between teaching staff in the three authorities but there is a statistically significant difference between non-teaching staff in the three authorities, ? ² (4) = 24.566, p<0.000. The main difference is between Fife and the other two authorities, with non-teaching staff in Fife agreeing to a greater extent with the statement (49% as opposed 14% in North Lanarkshire and 24% in Highland). Numbers in the 'definitely agree' category are small though suggesting that the results have to be interpreted with caution.

Table 31: Type of school: breakdown of responses

Perceptions of non-attendance is differs between the school types. Secondary teaching staff are more likely to agree with the statement than disagree; whilst over half of the primary staff disagree. The majority of staff in special schools disagree with this statement. There is a significant difference between teaching staff in primary and secondary schools ? ² (2) = 33.795, p<0.000 and for non-teaching staff ? ² (2) = 14.333, p<0.001.

The analysis does not show any significant differences between staff in the different age groups or between the different genders.

11. This school is supportive of all staff

Table 32: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

The numbers stating they required further information were lower for this statement than for the last one with five teaching staff and two non-teaching staff responding in this category. Five responses for teaching staff and three for non-teaching staff were spoilt or missing.

Table 33: Authority: breakdown of responses 'This school is supportive of all staff'

There is a difference here between the three authorities and it is statistically significant at ? ² (4) = 10.364, p<0.035 between teaching staff; however, there is no such difference between non-teaching staff. The difference is mainly that staff in Fife are more likely to disagree with this statement and least likely to 'definitely agree'. The analysis for this statement includes the first three response categories but omits 'need more information'.

Table 34: Type of school: breakdown of responses

The difference between the school types is statistically significant for both teaching and non-teaching staff, ? ² (2) = 15.529, p<0.000 for the former and ? ² (2) = 12.794, p<0.002 for the latter. This suggests that staff in primary schools tend to see themselves as better supported than those in secondary schools. The trend for the staff in the special school is similar to that of primary schools.

There are no differences in terms of male and female responses to this statement; however, there is a significant difference between the different age groups, ? ² (6) = 20.478, p<0.002. The main difference is between those in the 41-50 age group and the rest. This age are most likely to disagree with the statement, suggesting that they may not feel as well supported as younger or older staff do. However, as only just over one quarter of this age group disagreed with the statement there was a considerable percentage in this age group who agreed with it.

12. Communication is good among staff

Table 35: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Of the 437 teaching staff 1 stated there was a need for more information and 8 responses were spoilt or missing; the figures for non-teaching staff were 1 needing more information and 1 missing.

Table 36: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Communication is good among staff'

Whilst there is some variation between the authorities with a slightly lower percentage of Highland teaching staff disagreeing with the statement these differences are not statistically significant; among non-teaching staff the lowest percentage disagreeing are from North Lanarkshire. Overall more than two thirds of the staff in all authorities feel that communication is good amongst staff. Only the first three response categories are included here

Table 37: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a significant difference between the two types of schools. Primary staff are generally more likely to agree with this statement than secondary staff. The difference is statistically significant for both types of staff, ? ² (2) = 24.418, p. 0.000; ? ² (2) = 24.834, p<0.000. Staff in the special school had similar responses to primary staff.

There are no significant differences amongst either male/female staff or those of the different age groups. However, in terms of trends those in the 41-50 age group are most likely to feel that communication is not good amongst staff.

13. Inter-agency working is difficult in this school

Table 38: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

This is a statement where a large number of staff felt the need for further information. Out of the teaching staff 112 felt that they needed more information and 4 responses were missing or spoilt. The corresponding figure for non-teaching staff was 57 and 16 respectively.

Table 39: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Inter-agency working is difficult in this school

This analysis includes all four response categories. About one quarter of teaching staff and around a third of non-teaching staff did not feel they could respond to this statement without further information and this is the case across all three authorities. There are some differences between the three authorities amongst teaching staff with a slightly higher proportion of staff 'definitely agreeing' or 'agreeing' with this statement in Fife and Highland compared to North Lanarkshire. This difference is statistically significant ? ² (6) = 14.049, p<0.029. There is no significant difference between non-teaching staff in the three authorities.

Table 40: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a marked difference between secondary and primary staff with nearly one third of secondary staff compared to only one tenth of primary staff feeling they require further information. In addition more than half of the primary staff disagree with the statement the inter-agency collaboration is difficult compared to just over one third of secondary staff. The difference between the school types is statistically significant ? ² (3) = 14.950, p<0.002. There is no such difference between non-teaching staff in the two types of schools.

In terms of gender and age there were no significant differences for this statement.

14. Parents/carers are valued and welcomed here

Table 41: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the 437 teaching staff 27 felt the need for further information and 6 responses were missing; for non-teaching staff the equivalent figures were 11 and 2.

Table 42: Authority: breakdown of responses 'Parents/carers are valued and welcomed here'

Only those responses in the first two categories are included in this analysis. The majority of staff in all authorities agree with this statement and there is no statistically significant difference between the three authorities. However, the fact that a greater number of respondents feel the need for more information to respond to this question possibly indicates lack of knowledge of measures to involve parents/carers in their child's education.

Table 43: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a significant difference between teaching staff in the different types of school with a higher percentage of primary staff responding with 'definitely agree' than teaching staff in secondary schools. The values for teaching staff were ? ² (1) = 5.518, p<0.019, with ? ² (1) = 8.214, p<0.004. Secondary school staff were also more inclined to state that they required more information.

There are no differences between the different age groups but there are some differences between male and female secondary teachers for this statement. Male teachers are more likely to 'definitely agree or 'disagree' with this statement, ? ² (2) = 6.890, p<0.032 than female teachers. However, the difference is not great.

15. The school has good relations with the local community

Table 44: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Of the 437 teaching staff 27 felt they needed further information before responding and 5 responses were missing or spoilt. The corresponding figures for non-teaching staff were 15 and 2.

Table 45: Authority: breakdown of responses 'The school has good relations with the local community'

There is no difference between staff in the three authorities when the four response categories are included in the analysis. There are some slight differences between the authorities, mainly in terms of staff in North Lanarkshire and Highland agreeing that their schools have a good relationship with the local community compared to staff in Fife. This difference just fails to be significant (p<0.058).

Table 46: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a statistically significant difference between types of schools with primary teaching staff being most likely to 'definitely agree' with this statement and disagree less than secondary staff. ? ² (3)= 20.383, p<0.000. There is also significant difference between non-teaching staff with the greatest majority in both primary and special schools definitely agreeing with this statement, ? ² (3) = 38.544, p<0.000.

There are no differences either between male/female teachers or the different age groups in relation to this statement.

16. I understand what is meant by Restorative Practices

Table 47: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

There was a sizeable number of teaching staff, 65, feeling that they needed further information before responding to this question. This was also the case for non-teaching staff where 43 members of staff required further information. There were 8 spoilt/missing responses for teaching staff and 5 for non-teaching staff.

Table 48: Authority: breakdown of responses 'I understand what is meant by Restorative Practices'

This analysis includes all four response categories. The majority of teaching staff agree or definitely agree with this statement and there is no significant difference between the teaching staff in the three authorities. There is a significant difference between non-teaching staff though this is not great as for some of the other statements, ? ² (6) = 14.512, p<0.024. The main differences for this category of staff are that a greater proportion of non-teaching staff in Highland and Fife disagree with the statement and a greater proportion of North Lanarkshire staff feel they need further information.

Table 49: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a considerable difference in the responses between secondary staff and primary staff. The difference is statistically significant for both teaching and non-teaching staff, ? ²(3) = 26.344, p<0.000 and ? ² (3) = 27.350, p<0.000., respectively.

There are no gender or age differences in terms of the responses to this statement.

17. I have had training in using Restorative Practices

Table 50: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Out of the teaching staff, 33 felt they needed further information to answer this question and 17 responses were missing or spoilt. There were 27 non-teaching staff indicating that they required further information and 17 responses that were either spoilt or missing.

Table 51: Authority: breakdown of responses 'I have had training in using Restorative Practices'

All four response categories were included in this analysis. In Highland 42% of teaching staff and 34% of non-teaching staff indicate that they have had training, this compares with 28% and 27% respectively for teaching staff in North Lanarkshire and Fife. The corresponding non-teaching staff figures are 27% for both those authorities. However, this difference is not statistically significant. The question did not allow respondents to specify what type of training they have had and it is possible that there are differences in terms of what is interpreted as 'training'.

Table 52: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a considerable difference between staff in the different types of schools when it comes to training in restorative practices. The majority of staff, both teaching and non-teaching, in primary and special schools state that they have had training, with the more than three quarter of staff in secondary schools saying that they have not had any training. This differences is statistically significant for both types of staff, ? ² (4) = 53.027, p<0.000 and ? ² (3) = 69.049, p<0.000.

There are no gender or age differences in terms of the responses to this statement.

18. I would like more training in Restorative Practices

Table 53: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Table 54: Authority: breakdown of responses 'I would like more training in Restorative Practices

All four response categories have been included in this analysis. A considerable proportion of teaching staff, between 67% and 74%, indicate that they would like further training in restorative practices. Less than 10% state that they do not wish further training. A small percentage of staff indicate they would like further information before committing themselves. There is a slightly higher proportion of non-teaching staff indicating they do not want further training than the teaching staff but within this category the majority, over 60%, indicate that they would like further training. There are no significant differences between the authorities.

Table 55: Type of school: breakdown of responses

The majority of staff in all three types of schools indicated that they would like more training in restorative practices with more than 70% in secondary schools indicating this and over 80% in primary schools. However, a greater proportion of secondary staff, nearly a quarter of the sample, stated that they would like further information, this figure is considerably higher than the 11% from primary schools who felt they needed further information. There are no significant differences between the types of schools.

There are no differences between the different age groups in response to this statement; however, there is a gender difference among secondary staff. A greater number of female teachers indicate that they would like further training compare to male teachers, ? ² (2) = 8.280, p<0.016.

19. I use Restorative Practices effectively in my work

Table 56: Number of staff responding in each response category

* in categories 'definitely agree', agree to some extent' and 'disagree'

Both teaching and non-teaching staff had some difficulties in responding with either agree or disagree as 107 teaching staff and 62 non-teaching staff felt that they needed further information. There were 24 missing or spoilt responses for each of these categories of staff.

Table 57: Authority: breakdown of responses 'I use restorative practices effectively in my work'

Around half the teaching staff feel that they use restorative practices effectively, though the majority err on the cautious side and 'agree' rather than 'definitely agree' with this statement. The corresponding percentage for non-teaching staff is somewhat lower, except for Highland region. A sizeable proportion, nearly one third in North Lanarkshire feel they need further information and around 20% in all three authorities indicate that they do not use restorative practices effectively. There are no significant differences between the authorities for either category of staff.

Table 58: Type of school: breakdown of responses

There is a considerable difference between types of schools with around 45% of secondary teaching staff indicating that they use restorative practices effectively compared to 80% of primary staff. 88% of special school staff state that they use it effectively. There is also a larger proportion, nearly one third, of secondary staff who would like further information compared to only 7% of primary staff. The difference between the types of school is statistically significant, ? ² (3) = 40.181, p<0.000. The differences between non-teaching staff in the different types of school are also great, only 20% of staff in secondary school respond with 'definitely agree/agree'. This compares to 79% in primary schools. The comparable figure for special school non-teaching staff is 67%. Nearly half of the non-teaching staff in secondary schools state that they require further information with 20% and 33% respectively in primary and special schools. The largest number of non-teaching staff disagreeing with statement are found in secondary schools. As for teaching staff, the difference is statistically significant, , ? ² (3) = 51.027, p<0.000.

There are no significant differences either between the different age groups or the different genders.

Open-ended comments

There were 128 open comments altogether out of a total of 627 questionnaire returns. This represents 20% of all the respondents. Almost two thirds of the comments were by staff in secondary schools. The comments are therefore not necessarily representative of the overall sample. In terms of issues raised, the majority of comments focused on some aspect of Restorative Practices. This may be because the box, provided for responses, followed immediately after the last question and the last four questions in the questionnaire were about Restorative Practices.

A cluster of comments ranged from being very supportive of the approach to feeling that it is simply another initiative foisted upon teachers. The following quotes show the range:

"I am delighted that this approach is being used as part of our school policy. An encouraging move." (Primary school)

"I believe this is an excellent step and look forward to the embedding of the practices across the whole school staff."

"I think that using RP is a really good thing, as often problems can be overcome before reaching the point where a pupil/pupils reach the exclusion stage. It also allows both sides to air their views in front of each other." (Secondary school)

"Restorative practices can work to a certain degree. Will take time to see results. I feel strongly in some cases that parents should also be part of the scheme." (Primary school)

"I have been given no information from the school on RP. As a teacher in the profession for a relatively short period I am already fed up with the continual barrage of new initiatives. Most of them disappear after a substantial amount of investment. I would like to see investment in my subject so I can do my job effectively. Basic materials are finished by the end of 2 ^nd term." (Secondary school)

"Have not given any attention (consciously) to restorative practices. Sounds like another buzz phrase and initiative to be introduced, have money wasted and then be forgotten when the next 'big' initiative arrives from the USA." (Secondary school)

Whilst the last two comments indicate a negative view of 'yet further initiatives' another one commented on it as a positive approach:

"I attended a workshop outlining the aims of restorative practices and so broadly agree with it, however, the school has in place a very effective (in my opinion) support centre, which if better resourced, would go along way in improving behaviour in this school without having to embark on yet another 'new' initiative." (Secondary school)

A number of comments reflected the view that time may be problem when trying to implement restorative practices, this is shown in the quotes below:

"I am restorative in my approach; however, it can take time out of our very already tight curriculum. We have a lot to cover and at times we feel under pressure to complete all the tasks we plan for. (This is not pressure from within school but at a national level)". (Primary school)

"Restorative practices are time consuming. Needs to be built on relationships. I have severe doubts that a proper sensitive time allowance will be made to implement it properly. I doubt if the time will be factored in - already we see that UoE department is making negative comments about McCrone settlement." (Secondary school)

"Restorative practices is only one of very many approaches that can be used to resolve a situation. The main disadvantage I have found is that it is very time consuming for teachers and has to 'fit in' around a teaching commitment. It is easier for non-teaching staff to apply due to constraints on a timetable." (Secondary school)

"I believe in restorative practices, yet the many increasing circular demands which teachers are facing, together with an overwhelming pile of paperwork, prevents teachers from carrying out restorative practices effectively." (Primary school)

The suggestion that it is problematic for classroom teachers to implement restorative practices was echoed in other comments:

"Not possible to use RP effectively in classroom (teaching and learning environment). This needs to be done out with the classroom, preferably by specialist teachers." (Secondary school)

Other comments focused on training, lack of training in using the approaches and requests for further training, some of which needed to focus on its practical application.

"Had theory behind the approach from a visiting speaker but not proper practice at conducting a restorative session."

" RP has not been explained to staff." (Secondary school)

"I only know of RP through personal chat. No whole school knowledge." (Secondary school)

"Am a little disappointed that more has not been done in the way of training given that this is a local initiative. Would be keen to undertake any training to improve educational experience for all children." (Secondary school)

"Only had one inset day explaining restorative approaches, thought it sounded great and I'd like to find out more as I definitely feel that inappropriate behaviour is holding children's progress back in several classes." (Primary school)

There was a sense, from some of the comments, that the RP approach was useful but that it may not work with all children. There were some who felt that younger children and those with extreme problems may not respond to the interventions.

"At times difficulty arises restoring children's problems with each other due to time; however, when time is given the practice in most cases works. I feel older children find it easier to use restorative approaches to solve their problems." (Primary school)

"Believe restorative approach works with average pupils but with more difficult behavioural problems does not seem to be as successful. These pupils see it as a weakness and have difficulty talking through and reasoning situations." (Primary school)

"I have always tried to use RP first before taking any punitive measures. My recent experience of a meeting which was intended to use RP to enable a pupil, whose behaviour was preventing effective teaching and learning in the classroom, to return to the class, was not successful as the pupil was an unwilling participant." (Secondary school)

"Good experienced teachers have been using these techniques for years. Good for minor low level classroom problems but no good for the serious, abusive or threatening pupils. Even the best run and organised class cannot deal with pupils with serious behaviour and socialisation problems." (Secondary school)

There were also comments on the fact that this approach was just being developed and, some suggested that there was need to develop the right ethos; whilst a few felt that the approach was already in use.

"Restorative practices have only just started being used in my school. …Therefore I have not any experience of it - but I am aware of what it involves." (Secondary school)

"This will become a good practice in our school after 'teething problems' are managed." (Primary school)

"Something that we often use in guidance but didn't give it the title. Really good practice. More you do it the easier it gets" (Secondary school)

"Restorative practice is not a new idea. I have used the strategies throughout my teaching career with no formal training. I would appreciate more formal training in order to confirm my own judgement and as a boost to my existing skills." (Secondary school)

"Doing this practice without prior knowledge as part of my everyday job." (Secondary school)

Finally, in relation to restorative practices there were some comments on the effect of restorative practices on pupils.

"Children are encouraged by most adults to take responsibility for their own actions and children generally respect others and themselves." (Primary school)

"Letting the pupils know where they are going helps improve discipline and good organisation." (Secondary school)

As mentioned above, the majority of comments focused on the effect of restorative practices; however, some comments linked this to, or only commented on discipline. Comments in this area also tended to indicate disquiet regarding perceived inconsistency with senior management styles.

"School management team should all follow the same discipline structure, e.g. pupils should be punished the same regardless of who AHT is. Management team should also supervise corridors and playgrounds during breaks and lunch. Introduce more detentions as punishment. There should also be more focus on school uniform, e.g. pupil wearing jeans etc. should be sent home. There seems to be nothing done about this." (Secondary school)

"A more structured discipline procedure is needed." (Secondary school)

"Pupils need to comply with policy in place - SMT need to adhere to policies they have put in place. Pupils are given a variety of ways to get rid of poor/ineffective learning strategies and to gain better behaviour/better learning. However it occurs that pupils are at times not responding/staff are often asked to automatically give concessions and not apply policies/sanctions that are in place. This watering down of sanctions does not help the problems … It should be proactive not reactive. Bullying, peer pressure is rife in various year groups S1, S2, S4, e.g. specific classes …" (Secondary school)

"Strong leadership is required to curb indiscipline - a weak management team is responsible for lowering staff morale... The pupils are running riot. Having in-depth knowledge of inclusion/restorative practices is one thing/putting it into practice is different matter. It is sad to watch a school deteriorate. (Secondary school)

"Behaviour has become increasingly worse in our school in the last year and restorative approaches are being applied by guidance and senior management but as a PT I feel these are not working effectively as I am still having to deal with the same pupils week after week due to indiscipline." (Secondary school)

"Staff need to feel better supported by senior staff. The ethos has been better. Zero tolerance to bad manners, breaking of rules, as well as more serious bad behaviour would help - from all staff, inconsistencies abound." (Secondary school)

"I understand that this school is a pilot for a restorative practices scheme but have been given no information about it. I think I witnessed management using this technique twice and it failed to solve the problem and the pupils trying to achieve some level of education are still being disrupted and disadvantaged. Persistent offenders are currently told to say sorry. What is needed is a proper, successful discipline policy which allows the others to get on with their lives in peace." (Secondary school)

There are a few comments that relate to inclusion, in some cases linked to attendance and indiscipline. It was also noted that it was necessary to provide relevant support otherwise the school could not be considered inclusive.

"Although the school is 'inclusive' it must then provide support those pupils we wish to include - this is lacking at times. Therefore not an inclusive an inclusive school since we do not offer sufficient support to these pupils? Dismayed at behaviour of some and lack of support in trying to tackle this." (Secondary school)

"Attendance problems with some older pupils. Although behaviour generally good, a few pupils are very disruptive and efforts don't appear to be working in many cases leading to other pupils learning disruptive behaviour. Although some pupils don't achieve their academic potential, I would say most do … [comment on questionnaire]. There are very few disruptive pupils at [school]. They are a very small minority. If a pupil is continually disrupting a class, it is not in the interests of the teacher and the rest of the class for the pupil to remain in the class. I also firmly believe that it is not in the interests of that pupil to remain in the class. While I agree that all efforts should be made to include the pupil, there should come a time, before too much damage is done, to find an alternative to a situation which is clearly not working." (Secondary school)

In relation to inclusion, there was only one comment that mentioned difficulties with including physically handicapped children. The majority focused on behaviour problems.

There were two comments in relation to the word punishment and these both came from the same school.

"Never used the word punish. This is a very inclusive school. I have two children at present who could have been excluded many times. I work with those children on a daily basis and sometimes almost for the whole day as they can be unable to work in the class setting" (Primary school)

"Don't like the word punish - 'it is sometimes necessary to help improve children's behaviour'. I have been training in RP by Belinda Hopkins and the course was excellent." (Primary school)

Summary of open ended comments.

The majority of open-ended comments related to Restorative Practices and approaches and they ranged across a number of key themes. In general the comments mirror the findings from the quantitative analysis.

• There were comments from both primary and secondary staff on the value (or otherwise) of RP with the most negative coming from secondary staff.
• There are a number of comments with regards to training, several requesting further training or commenting on incomplete training.
• A number of the comments suggest that the approach is time consuming and that this is difficult for teachers who are already under considerably pressure.
• In general, only secondary schools have commented on issues around the need for better ways of managing discipline. Some of these comments also include a mention of poor support from senior managers and poor skills in some of those managing discipline.
• Comments in relation to inclusion tended to refer to the difficulty of including children with poor behaviour - only one comment mentioned physical access issues.

References

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1966) Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. London: Heinemann.

Restorative Practice Questionnaires

« Previous | Contents | Next »