The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 RESTORATIVE PRACTICES AT LOCAL AUTHORITY LEVEL

Introduction

In this chapter we report the experiences of the three Local Authorities as they engaged with and developed their strategic thinking about the main ideas of Restorative Practices. This provides a picture of the various ways in which the initiative was taken forward and also offers a sense of the context for the work that happened in schools. Three Local Authorities ( LAs) were selected by the Scottish Executive for participation in the pilot project. The schools were selected in various ways in the 3 LAs. In Fife, LA staff employed an 'assessment of readiness' tool in order to identify schools which would benefit from participation in the project. In North Lanarkshire, RP had begun to develop across the Authority prior to the start of the national pilot project and schools here were identified centrally for the evaluation. In Highland, schools were approached individually by LA staff and asked to become involved.

Analysis revealed many similarities in experiences and understandings between the 3 LAs, but also some significant differences reflecting local priorities and contexts. Many existing policy aims and objectives were recognised as linking to, and supportive of, a restorative approach, and this 'blending' of programmes and underlying principles was evident in the large number and range of practices in operation across the schools.

Implementation of Restorative Practices in Local Authorities

All three LAs were keen to emphasise local ownership rather than top-down approaches, although they all presented RP as a support for staff. They each set up varied forms of discussion/consultation with schools and two of the LAs established support networks for the schools in the national evaluation, which meet regularly to offer mutual support. While Highland Council seemed to advocate a 'hands off', organic approach to the participating schools, North Lanarkshire Council has offered relatively clear leadership and a much more strategic overall approach. Fife Council has aimed to offer a balance of support and accountability through its focus on the provision and review of school Action Plans. It is clear, then, that these LAs are developing their own approaches and priorities within Restorative Practices, taking into account other current national and local priorities and initiatives.

We have noted that the 3 LAs took a slightly different approach and this was reflected in their choice of terminology. In this report overall, we use the term Restorative Practices. However, in the summary of the implementation in each LA, we use the term adopted by key staff in that LA: in Fife, they talked about Restorative Approaches, in Highland, they spoke of Restorative Interventions, and in North Lanarkshire they referred to Restorative Practices. Equally, as schools made the practices their own they used different terms, sometimes for the same practice. This is accepted as an inevitable feature of the early development of any initiative.

4.1 Implementation of Restorative Approaches at Local Authority level in Fife

Background

Fife has a population of around 350 000 and is a mix of urban, suburban and rural areas, with a long industrial and agricultural history. It includes some areas with significant economic deprivation. It has 19 secondary and 146 primary and 7 special schools. Fife has a proportionately smaller number of secondary schools than Highland and North Lanarkshire, but with larger pupil rolls. Exclusion rates and Free School Meal Entitlement ( FSME) are around the national average.

Funding of Restorative Approaches in Fife

Funding was set aside to support the development of an LA-wide network group for all schools involved in the pilot, not only those involved in the evaluation. This group invited bids from schools for a range of associated uses: and provided, for example; class cover, training, playground equipment and caps and badges for pupils offering peer support and ICT equipment.

The Fife approach

The broad vision of Fife Council is immediately evident in their decision to describe what they do as Restorative Approaches ( RA) and not Restorative Practices. They describe RA as:

Caring, mutually supportive, empathetic, engaging, collegiate, non-threatening but challenging - and within a framework where responsibility and accountability is made clear and confidentiality respected (Web update 20/1/06).

This LA places particular emphasis on the differences between RA and Restorative Justice:

The unfolding educational model eschews the notion of 'offenders' who are dealt with by specialist staff … in essence RA has a school community focus, to which all staff and students can contribute to a greater or lesser degree. (Web update 20/1/06).

Fife Council encouraged participating schools to develop their own approach; however, they required schools to produce an action plan for each year of the project. These plans have formed the basis for subsequent developments and have promoted a strong sense of engagement, ownership and accountability. This approach has strongly indicated the commitment of Fife Council to the development of RA, and key personnel in the pilot schools have remarked on the value and support of the regular network meetings where they could share experiences and ideas. Fife Council has also encouraged those developing RA in their schools to visit other schools in the LA and attend/present at inset days and conferences. The termly visits to each school by the co-ordinator were also valued by key school personnel interviewed.

There was a strong commitment on the part of the key LA staff to the idea of school 'readiness' for change. There was an equally firm belief that if RA were to be effective then low level interventions (in the classroom, the corridor, the dining hall - the school environment in general) were most likely to effect positive change in individuals and cultural and organisational change within the institution. High tariff interventions, they felt, could be handled within current provision but that an emphasis on such as a driver for RA had significant risks. Nevertheless a few schools did place emphasis initially on RA for 'high tariff' pupils and the development of Restorative Conferencing. The effect of RA being used proactively in all the primary schools, through the use of restorative language, conversations and actions, has helped to illustrate the broader approach, and has resulted in the reactive formal conferencing aspect of RA being increasingly seen as only a small part of a more holistic approach. Secondary schools too have recognised the importance of the early stages of the restorative continuum of approaches.

Many initiatives taking place in Fife schools were recognised as linking to and supportive of a restorative approach, as noted previously. In particular the success of Fife's programme for primary schools for teaching pro-social behaviour is now being developed for secondary schools with this 'roll out' seen as further enhancement RA principles and philosophy. Fife's strategic support designed to improve, through peer support, the effectiveness of a teacher's classroom management skills was also mentioned by several pilot schools as integral to/having an impact on the successful development of initiatives such as RA. The result of this interlinking and relative seamlessness of initiatives has, however made it more difficult to gauge the impact of any individual programme or initiative.

The issues raised below were evident in Fife, but many of these were also evident across the three pilot LAs.

School Change

Changing the culture/ethos of complex organisations/communities such as schools (especially secondary schools) takes time and requires a systematic and planned approach. One of the most significant determinants of an organisation's culture will be the leadership style of managers at all levels (Thorsborne 2005). The importance of school managers modelling RA is illustrative of this and this was regularly mentioned in interviews with staff and with pupils.

Some particular issues regarding school change that arose during the course of the evaluation are:

• Changes in Headteachers/key personnel. It was noticeable that within the last five years 5 out of the 6 pilot schools had had new Headteachers
• Impact of McCrone implementation
• Impact of HMIE inspections
• Schools involved in revising discipline policies and procedures

Training

The opportunity for each school to identify their own training needs led to a good mix of internal and external training and a positive response from those who have taken part. Primary schools in general aimed to include all staff from early on, others have started with those who expressed interest and now are widening out. The staff survey and individual interviews revealed that all schools were very aware of the importance of staff development in relation to broad issues of values and interpersonal relationship as well as particular strategies and skills. SACRO training was seen as useful by many interviewees, but some thought not school based enough and perhaps sometimes too justice focussed. Fife developed training for non-teaching support staff which is seen to support RA. This was identified in interviews as important and valuable. Some key staff at LA and school level attended training led by Bob Costello from International Institute for Restorative Practices ( IIRP) and two individual training seminars led by Marg Thorsborne from Margaret Thorsborne Associates (Nov 2005) and Peta Blood, from Circlespeak (June 2006).

Strengths and achievements in Fife Primary schools

A key element in the successful development of RA in the Fife primary schools was the holistic/whole school approach to RA that was evident at the beginning of the pilot. The importance of involving and training pupils and all staff in RA was also recognised and acted upon. The focus on restorative meetings and conversations is also characteristic of the Fife approach to conflict resolution/addressing harm, rather than the formal conferences often associated with restorative practice.

Other strengths and achievements in Fife primary schools included:

• A strong focus on ethos and relationships in and out of classrooms
• A generally broad view of RA underpinning practice
• Strong modelling by Headteachers and key staff
• Highly significant role of non-teaching support staff
• RA building on developments already started
• Real evidence of cultural change - while still a minority of individual resisters
• A range of initiatives linked together with RA as an underpinning philosophy for some of these
• Strong influence of RA language around the school
• Reduction in use of disciplinary exclusion
• Reduction in reporting of disciplinary incidents in school
• Reduction in the use out of school support
• Clear evidence of children developing conflict resolution skills
• Regular and sustained RA training for all staff and pupils

Challenges and needs in Fife primary schools

• The many changes of staff during the pilot (at all levels in many of the schools) presents a challenge (also in recruiting staff who will be amenable to RA) together with the need to keep the momentum for change going
• All schools need to continue to work to bring parents on board
• To communicate to pupils, staff and parents when a restorative solution has been reached (to avoid 'nothing been seen to be done')
• For RA to be seen as fair and just for all concerned
• To sustain/embed RA principles so they are not rejected during episodic 'down' points in the school calendar

In secondary schools the initial development of RA was more strongly linked to 'dealing with' discipline issues, and therefore challenges deeply held beliefs around notions of discipline and authority (Blood and Thorsborne 2005). This has proved no easy matter, and the key personnel in the pilot schools are to be commended for their commitment and enthusiasm.

Strengths and achievements in Fife secondary schools

• Commitment and modelling of RA by key members of staff
• Some staff clearly using restorative language and conversations
• Revision of disciplinary policies and procedures to become more restorative
• Development and use of restorative meetings to address conflict between pupils and between staff and pupils
• Some staff identifying significant changes in classroom climate and some departments developing restorative strategies
• Providing internal and external training opportunities for staff
• Giving new and enthusiastic members of staff the opportunity to be trained/train in RA
• Recognising that change in Secondary schools is slow, but 'hanging on in there'
• Development and distribution of RA literature to parents and staff
• Developing procedures/processes for specific RA interventions

Challenges and needs in Fife secondary schools

• To continue to work on the broader ideas of RA and promote conversations and language across the school
• To ensure that RA is seen as equitable and just by all those concerned
• To communicate with staff, pupils and parents about outcomes of RA interventions
• To demonstrate to staff how RA can be used effectively for low-level discipline problems in class
• Discipline policies appear 'ever changing', complex and sometimes hard for staff and pupils to follow
• To be aware that renaming punishment exercises as, for example 'a consequence' may not make it more restorative
• To address the role and use of punishment and sanctions
• To continue to monitor discipline referrals in identifying areas of difficulty in the school
• To broaden out training and staff development to all members of the school community

Issues in implementation of RA in Fife

• There was a range of strategies adopted to introduce RA into schools. Recognising some staff already operated in a restorative way and therefore using the 'label' RA in relation to some existing or currently developing practices, eg peer support, was helpful both in that RA did not seem like yet another initiative and also that they had some of the adult skills needed.
• Offering early staff development was important both to introduce the range of RA and to allow staff to explore values and underpinning ideas. Continuing discussion has been valuable. This is easier for Primary schools than for Secondary schools with significant pressures/competing demands for staff development time.
• Issue of school readiness. The degree of readiness influenced the approaches initially adopted by schools, for example secondary schools with significant numbers of likely 'resisters' opted for small-scale 'local' innovation to begin with eg just involving guidance/behaviour support or particular departments. Primary schools have found it easier to embed RA into school policies and culture.
• Having committed, enthusiastic staff to model this approach across the school was very important. Leadership from senior management was predictably important; if knowledge, support and modelling by key senior staff is significant then there are implications for staff development for managers.
• RA was one of a multiple, simultaneous innovations/developments in the 6 schools. This means that it was difficult to attribute direct effect to a particular strategy/intervention. However it seemed important that RA was compatible with other developments and indeed in some cases that the willingness to embrace RA was an indication of an openness to change. Primary schools were able to develop a 'blended', integrated approach to their various developments.
• The research identified a substantial challenge for some colleagues trying to implement RA in the face of sometimes significant pressures from school/community and trying to take staff with them. Fife's strategy of autonomy with accountability and support was valued and Steering Group meetings very useful for sharing information/opinions and mutual support.
• Non-teaching support staff were a key feature of the developments, particularly but not exclusively in Primary schools. They were involved in training and systems for supporting their involvement in RA were established in some schools. Some were very influential in and beyond their school.
• 1 primary and 1 secondary school were in areas of high social/economic disadvantage, both schools with previously high levels of exclusion and behavioural difficulties. There is clearly a particular challenge for such schools in developing RA and in involving parents and the wider community. Both schools demonstrated great commitment and progress in this.
• There is a range of issues about the relationship of RA, as conceptualised and developed by Fife, with punishment and sanctions. Can you move towards RA by 'less' punitive methods, i.e. methods that may still be quite punitive but seem to indicate progress towards a more Restorative Approach? Equally, strategies developed as restorative may be experienced as punitive (eg consequence exercises that focus entirely on pupils reflecting on inappropriate behaviour).

Restorative Approaches need to become embedded in school cultures:

There's always the risk that when the going gets tough, restorative is an easy target in any school…you've got a kind of default setting among teachers saying 'well that's all very well but we're not punitive enough, we're not scary enough. The kids aren't frightened of us' (Staff).

The evaluators agree with the comment by one key LA figure,

I suppose this is the main challenge - to change the culture from one where some schools are run on fear to a culture which chimes with the web statement quoted on page 1. And the pilot has given grounds for optimism…. There seems to us to have been very good progress, at different paces, but clear evidence of much commitment, work and successful development of Restorative Approaches.

4.2 Implementation of Restorative Interventions ( RI) at Local Authority level in Highland

Background

Highland is a largely rural area, with a population of around 200,000 and only one large urban centre. The area has the lowest reported crime rate in Scotland, but also has lower than average weekly earnings rate. It has 29 secondary schools and 184 primary and 6 special schools. Many of the schools are smaller than in other LA areas. Attainment has traditionally been above the national average while exclusions and FSME rates are below the national average. Although during the period of the pilot no pupils were excluded without agreement to re-admit.

Funding Restorative Interventions in Highland

The LA seconded a senior educational psychologist, who was the training co-ordinator for psychological services, on a half-time basis to promote, monitor and evaluate the implementation of RP across the area. In addition, each of the 11 schools involved in the Highland Local Authority pilot received £1000 pa as a contribution towards costs.

The Highland approach

At LA level, understanding of the aims for the pilot were summarised as follows:

we are interested in this from a whole range of different directions and we want you to try a number of different practices, in a number of different settings and tell us what works and what doesn't in the school setting.

The broad aims of RI fit with Highland Council's own aims for children, outlined in their Children's Services Plan 2005-2008, 'All of Highland's children have the best possible start in life; enjoy being young; and are supported to develop as confident, capable and resilient, to fully maximise their potential' and with Education, Culture, Sport Service Plan objective of 'Participation and Inclusion' to, 'Review policies for management of pupil care, welfare and discipline, reducing exclusions, promoting positive behaviour, anti-bullying and anti-racism and pilot approaches to staged intervention' and to, 'Develop the curriculum to promote participation and inclusion'.

The approach of the LA and its relationship with schools in the LA reflects in some ways this broad view. There was no requirement for Highland LA schools to produce or submit an action plan for each year of the project, although some schools did this for their own purposes. All schools also included RI in their own school or departmental development plans, though often this was deeply embedded within general aims about behaviour policy. A number of schools were revising their behaviour management policy during the evaluation.

The geographical distances and distinctive identities of the different schools in the evaluation were always a feature of any discussions about progress on RI. Perhaps this was one reason why Highland Steering Group meetings were occasional rather than regular. However, the central role of school management was recognised by staff in each school from the beginning. Within the schools, staff often preferred the term Restorative Interventions, and although different schools interpreted this term in different ways, it does suggest that RI was viewed, at least initially as 'part of the jigsaw' rather than an over-arching philosophy. The terms ' organic' and ' local ownership' were also sometimes used by staff at Local Authority and school level to describe they felt about the best ways to make progress within this initiative. LA support was appreciated by schools but it was also clear that schools felt that they had the required understanding of local needs and contexts. The RI co-ordinator at LA level supported this approach.

Schools were already engaged with other broader initiatives such as the move towards integrated community schools and also with initiatives specifically focused on personal and social development and behaviour, such as Discipline for Learning and Staged Intervention (Framework for Intervention FFI), buddying, circle time, peer mediation and the development of pupil Local Authorities. There has been debate in some schools about the compatibility of assertive discipline approaches and RI. Some schools which were also introducing staged intervention had differing views about the possible relationship between this and RI. One school suggested that staged intervention may at times be an alternative to RI.

Although the LA was keen to encourage a broad and flexible approach to RI, some schools initially placed emphasis on its use for more troubled or disruptive pupils. One early attempt at full conferencing took place and was subsequently felt to have been counter-productive. Over time some schools began to explore the possibilities of more pro-active, preventative approaches within the RI framework. There have been some early moves towards the use of restorative language with some individual pupils. Inter-agency working was felt to be problematic in some schools but a real strength in others.

School Change

Some particular issues regarding school change that arose during the course of the evaluation were:

• Changes in Headteachers/key personnel. Within the last five years, 4 out of the 6 schools had had changes at senior management level
• Impact of McCrone implementation
• Impact of HMIE inspections
• Impact of rurality and distances between schools and distance from central Scotland and its opportunities for networking and training
• Impact of other priorities/initiatives

Training

Trainers from 'Inclusive Solutions' provided a day's training as a launch for RI in Highland LA and this focused on mini-conferencing and development of conferencing. At this early stage it was felt that conferencing would be the final aim for schools. SACRO also offered training to guidance, learning support and support staff in one secondary school before the pilot began. SACRO later offered one day's training to each of the schools involved in the pilot. The training organisation 'Transforming Conflict' also offered 2 tranches of 4 day training to key staff in all pilot schools. The staff survey revealed that most staff still felt that they would like more training. The time for training was seen as a part of the rurality issue noted earlier. Some LA and school staff also visited the IIRP in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The RI Co-ordinator for Highland organised a LA-wide training day looking at a number of different aspects of behaviour management including RI and this was very well supported despite taking place on a Saturday. Some key staff at LA and school level also attended two individual training seminars led by Marg Thorsborne (Nov 2005) and Peta Blood, Circlespeak (June 2006).

Monitoring progress on RI

The LA was keenly aware of the need to avoid crude measures of improvement, such as exclusion rates. Instead they wanted to schools to think about ethos, using the national indicators in How Good is our School? The extent to which schools have developed their own approaches to monitoring and evaluation is not however clear.

Strengths and achievements in Highland primary schools

• Early awareness of the need to consider how best to communicate with parents about RI
• Strong modelling by senior staff
• A broad and flexible view of RI
• Development of children's skills of conflict resolution
• Recognition of the possible impact of RI on staff relationships as well as pupil relationships
• Involvement in training opportunities and seminars
• Newsletter to parents about RI
• Children are positive about RI

Challenges and needs in Highland primary schools

• Communication between schools about how others are getting on

Strengths and achievements in Highland secondary schools

• Identified existing and potential links between peer mediation and RI
• Involvement in training opportunities and seminars
• Strong modelling by some key staff
• Modelling by subject departments as well as guidance staff
• Identification of need for secondary and primary schools to work more closely together

Challenges and needs in Highland secondary schools

• Tension between traditional thinking about punishment and RI
• Communication between schools about how others are getting on
• The relationship between RI and structures such as school liaison groups is still to be fully explored
• Need to recognise that some strategies developed by staff to be restorative may be experienced by pupils as punitive

Issues in implementation of RI in Highland schools

• Having enough committed, enthusiastic staff to model this approach across the school
• Evidence of change has been harder to identify in an authority with a low exclusion rate overall
• Development of locally-based and in-house training has been met with great enthusiasm and it will be important to keep the impetus
• Issues of rurality and geographical distance impact on opportunities for networking
• Changes at senior management level in some schools had a significant effect on the implementation of RI
• Supportive and responsive ways for schools to monitor their own progress now need to be developed.

4.3 Implementation of Restorative Practices at Local Authority level in North Lanarkshire

Background

North Lanarkshire has a population of around 325,000, and has a high number of large urban centres and suburban areas, with a smaller number of rural pockets. It has the highest Local Authority-rented sector of any LA in Scotland. The total pupil population is similar to Fife and three times higher than in Highland. It has 131 primary schools, 26 secondary schools and 11 special schools. School exclusions and FSME are slightly above the national average. The number of denominational schools is higher in North Lanarkshire than in the other two LAs in the evaluation.

Funding of RP in North Lanarkshire

In North Lanarkshire, the funding was held centrally by the LA Steering Group and used to provide extensive training for staff in primary, secondary and special schools. Schools did not have a RP budget but senior managers in schools were able to call on the LA to fund cover to enable staff to take up training opportunities.

The North Lanarkshire Approach

North Lanarkshire Council's involvement with the national pilot built on an interest which they had already begun to develop quite extensively. An inclusion support base had been set up at authority level as a ' mechanism, a more coherent way to look at a number of initiatives' (Steering Group member) and they had already invested in some training. Early on, the LA Steering Group placed particular emphasis on the differences between RP and Restorative Justice and rejected the idea that conferencing was central. It was suggested by one LA member of staff that:

it is about looking at relationships. It is about looking at ways in which staff can be helped to relate to young people and indeed to each other in such a way that you either minimise the likelihood of conflict exploding or where conflict does exist and does build up… you have a variety of approaches; from information to conflict resolution between the parties involved all the way through to what might be formal mediation. What we think is important is the underlying philosophy and approach.

The aims for RP in North Lanarkshire Council centred on embedding this philosophy in everyday practice so that it would impact on teaching and learning and ultimately help raise achievement for all. It was seen as essential to give teachers the skills to take responsibility for all the pupils in their class, and reduce the number of occasions when staff felt that pupils needed 'specialist' help. The use of external facilitators was not, then, seen as helpful.

North Lanarkshire Council wished to encourage schools to develop their own approaches within these aims. They offered a large number of training opportunities in a phased way. Schools were already engaged with other broader initiatives such as the move towards integrated community schools and also with initiatives specifically focused on pupils' personal and social development and behaviour, or buddying, circle time, peer mediation and the development of pupil councils. It was often noted in interviews at LA and school level that many of these initiatives were compatible, especially the widely used packages focused on pupils' personal and social development and behaviour and peer mediation. The result of this interlinking of initiatives has made it, again, more difficult to gauge the impact of any individual programme or initiative.

Although the LA was keen to encourage a broad and flexible approach to RP, there was wide variation in how schools responded to this. Some schools, particularly secondary schools, initially placed emphasis on its use for more troubled or disruptive pupils. The primary and special schools were interested from the start in exploring the possibilities of more pro-active, preventative approaches within the RP framework. Two of the primaries talked about wanting to be a 'restorative school'. In these schools, there was evidence of use of restorative language being used with pupils.

There was no requirement for schools to produce or submit an action plan for each year of the project, although some schools did this for their own purposes or for the purposes of the national evaluation. There was no requirement for schools to include RP in their own school or departmental development plans, though, again, some schools chose to do this. A number of schools were also revising their behaviour management policies during the evaluation.

The general issues raised below were evident in North Lanarkshire Council, but, again, many were present across authorities. It is also noted that there were significant staff changes at authority level in North Lanarkshire Council as the evaluation came to an end, including the retirement of one member of the informal Steering Group, and promotion and move to another LA of another.

School Change

Some issues regarding school change that arose during the course of the evaluation were:

• Changes in Headteachers/key personnel. Within the last five years, 5 out of the 6 schools involved in the evaluation had experienced changes at senior management level
• Impact of McCrone implementation
• Impact of HMIE inspections
• Schools involved in revising discipline policies and procedures
• Major school refurbishment and new build programme

Training

North Lanarkshire Council had a very clear view about effective approaches to training in this area. Members of the Steering Group visited the IIRP in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania before the evaluation began. Different approaches were seen to be appropriate for the primary and secondary sectors. Training was offered by 'Transforming Conflict' for primary staff and the secondary training was offered by authority staff. Each staff member was given a copy of, Just Schools; A Whole School Approach to Restorative Justice (Hopkins 2003). In each of the 6 schools, at least 2 members of staff, including at least one member of senior management, had either 4 or 8 days training in RP. In the 2 primary schools the Headteacher and Depute Headteachers were trained. In the special school, the head, depute and acting Principal Teacher, Behaviour Support were all trained. The longer training included 'training for trainers' sessions, enabling these senior staff to then train staff in their own settings.

The ways in which this training was cascaded differed widely between the schools. In the special school, the Headteacher and Principal Teacher, Behaviour Support, offered 10 after school sessions for primary staff, with an almost 100% take up. This was followed by a similar approach with secondary staff the following year and again take up was good. Other schools took a different approach, for example, an awareness- raising session was offered to staff in 5 schools and led by trained Headteachers from 2 of the schools in the evaluation. In another area, two Depute Headteachers offered in-house session for colleagues in their schools and associated primary schools. These opportunities for staff were voluntary but were well-attended. The school evaluated this in-service and the responses were made available to the evaluation team. Staff in a number of schools had subsequently also been invited to talk about RP in other fora, such as LA and national conferences.

Twilight sessions and in-service day inputs in school were also offered to all schools by North Lanarkshire Council. North Lanarkshire also provided 1 day RP training by 'Transforming Conflict' for non-teaching support staff. The peer mediation training to pupils offered by the inclusion support base staff developed a more restorative approach during the period of the evaluation. In addition, Bob Costello from the IIRP came to North Lanarkshire Council and offered a series of one day seminars for staff. Some key LA staff and staff from each school also attended one day seminars led by Marg Thorsborne of Margaret Thorsborne and Associates (Nov 2005) and Peta Blood, RP Consultant (June 2006) from Australia.

It was clear from interviews with primary staff that the training offered by 'Transforming Conflict' was felt to be very good. Staff also felt that the authority and in-school 'recall days' offered a good level of support and helped sustain and develop their skills and confidence. The staff survey revealed that most staff in both primary and secondary schools felt that they would like more training; including opportunities to observe and practise restorative ways of working.

Monitoring progress in RP was not undertaken in a systematic way by the authority and this seemed to be partly a recognition of the very broad aims for RP in North Lanarkshire Council, and the large number of complementary initiatives.

Communication with Home

The authority developed and distributed three different information leaflets - one for parents, and 2 for pupils at different reading stages. The pupil leaflets avoided the use of the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' and were described as 'for pupils-version 1' and 'for pupils-version 2'.

Strengths and achievements in North Lanarkshire Council primary schools/special school

• A key element in the successful development of RP in North Lanarkshire Council primary schools and the special school was the holistic/whole school approach to RP that was evident at the beginning of the evaluation. The importance of involving and training pupils and all staff was also recognised and acted upon in a systematic and supportive way
• A strong focus on ethos and relationships in and out of classrooms
• A generally broad view of RP underpinning practice
• Strong modelling by Headteachers and key staff
• Recognition by key staff of the significant role of non-teaching support staff
• RP building on developments already started
• A range of initiatives linked together with RP as an underpinning philosophy for some of these
• Real evidence of cultural change in some schools- while still a minority of individual resisters
• Using and adapting restorative language around the school
• Reduction in reporting of disciplinary incidents in school; a 'calmer' school
• Clear evidence of children developing and using conflict resolution skills
• Regular and sustained training for all staff and pupils
• Early awareness of the need to communicate with parents about RP
• Children's view that school is 'more fun' and teachers don't shout as much

Challenges and needs in North Lanarkshire primary schools/special school

• Identifying how to maintain momentum in view of the number of significant staff changes
• All schools need to continue to work to bring parents on board
• To communicate to pupils, staff and parents when a restorative solution has been reached (to avoid 'nothing been seen to be done')
• To sustain/embed restorative principles so they are not rejected during episodic 'down' points in the school calendar
• Maintain and develop further training opportunities which allow staff to reflect on the 'big ideas' in RP as well as practising the skills
• Devise opportunities for senior and key staff to consider the possible and most appropriate relationships between RP and other initiatives such as personal and social development, peer mediation and circle time
• Some staff felt that punishment was still a necessary part of their task as teachers. This may indicate that there are different understandings and views about whether RP are seen as the over-arching ethos or merely 'another tool in the tool box'. Staff need time to consider this important issue

Strengths and achievements in North Lanarkshire secondary schools

In North Lanarkshire, as in the other LAs, in secondary schools the initial development of RP was more strongly linked to 'dealing with' discipline issues, and therefore challenged deeply held beliefs around notions of discipline and authority (Blood and Thorsborne 2005). This has proved no easy matter, and the key personnel in schools are to be commended for their commitment and enthusiasm. These schools now feel in a position to widen restorative practice out across the whole school through the use of restorative meetings, language and conversations. The focus on restorative meetings and conversations is also characteristic of the North Lanarkshire approach to conflict resolution/addressing harm, rather than the formal conferences often associated with restorative practice.

Strengths and achievements in North Lanarkshire secondary schools include:

• Commitment and modelling of RP by key members of staff, especially within pupil support teams
• Some staff using restorative language and conversations
• Development and improved co-ordination of a multi-disciplinary behaviour support team in one school
• The establishment of systems to monitor the use and impact of behaviour support in one school
• Interest in RP generated by trained staff among other staff and especially subject areas
• Development and use of restorative meetings to address conflict between pupils and between staff and pupils
• Some staff identifying significant changes in classroom climate and some departments developing restorative strategies
• Recognising that change in secondary schools is slow, but 'hanging on in there'
• The involvement of pupils as restorative practitioners through buddying and anti-bullying initiatives
• Development of Restorative Conferencing processes
• In one school, RPs linked to and built on existing initiatives to maintain a positive school ethos.

Challenges and needs in North Lanarkshire secondary schools

• The provision of further opportunities for all staff to learn more about, and share more about their experience of RP
• Structured opportunities for trained staff to develop the confidence to train others in school
• Maintain and develop further training opportunities which allow staff to reflect on the 'big ideas' in RP as well as practising the skills
• Extend understanding and use of RP into subject departments
• Develop systems for monitoring and evaluation RP
• Continue to promote conversations and use of restorative language across the school
• To ensure that RP is seen as equitable and just by all those concerned
• To communicate with staff, pupils and parents about outcomes of restorative interventions
• To address the role and use of punishment and sanctions
• To continue to monitor discipline referrals in identifying areas of difficulty in the school.

Issues in implementation of RP in North Lanarkshire

• Impact of changes at senior management level within the LARP steering group in particular and in the LA children and families team in general, recognizing that these changes may be unsettling for school managers
• Impact of changes at senior management level in schools
• Recognising that some staff already operate in a restorative way and that what they may require is support of senior management rather than further training
• The impact of new Headteachers who are already familiar with and committed to RP
• Assessing effectiveness of using different approaches to training for primary and secondary schools
• Having committed, enthusiastic staff to model this approach across the school
• Issue of school readiness for change
• Reviewing how developments in RP may be helpful in responding to critical HMIE reports in some schools
• McCrone and HMIE ('depression'/low staff morale) sometimes increasing resistance to change
• Individual pressures on colleagues who are trying to implement RP in the face of sometimes significant pressures from school/community and trying to take staff with them
• Significance of non-teaching support staff and training/supporting their involvement in RP
• Importance of critical mass of those already working restoratively
• Effects of multiple innovation and the difficulties for staff and pupils in coping with these
• Questions about whether or not schools can move towards being more restorative while continuing to use punitive methods
• Pressures on 'successful' schools to provide training and restorative interventions to the wider community needs to be supported by LA.

4.4 Summary: Restorative Practices at Local Authority Level

At LA level, the three areas all developed their own thinking and approaches to RP. There were some external events which impacted on RP, but over which RP had no control. The significant amount of change at senior management level in schools in each authority was, for example, part of a larger issue about school change and is discussed more fully later. The impact of HMIE inspections and reports, likewise, influenced the direction of RP in a small number of schools. However, the implementation of RP was also clearly influenced by a number of other factors and, perhaps most importantly, the early emergence of a rejection of the centrality of formal conferencing in each of the three LAs. The support for low-key restorative interventions of various kinds gathered momentum quite rapidly and gave a distinctive 'Scottish' shape to the RP initiative.

Many of the strengths and achievements identified above were common to each LA. The challenges that have been identified form a basis to the plans for development that are now emerging from these LAs. Differences also emerged between authorities. Each approached the question of training needs and provision differently. The findings suggest that these differences were not seen as problematic in themselves; school staff in each area generally felt that they had benefited from the training offered, although according to the staff survey still felt they needed more. Each authority took a different view about how best to monitor progress on RP; Fife had regular meetings for schools; Highland schools were encouraged to forge their own path, while North Lanarkshire used its comprehensive training programme progress to both monitor and support schools.

The relationship between the Scottish Executive and the LAs was seen as very positive by key staff in each of the 3 areas. There was a clear understanding on the part of these key LA staff that they were being asked to 'try a number of different practices, in a number of different settings and tell us what works and what doesn't' (Highland Steering Group member). This flexibility was valued by the different LAs as giving a kind of 'growing space', not always associated with new initiatives.

« Previous | Contents | Next »