Restorative Approaches in London PRUs

This work was a key element of the whole Back on Track Project in London between 2009 and 2011.

Some PRUs had been using Restorative Approaches (RA) but for the first time this project took a whole schooldevelopmental approach to the introduction of RA. This report sets out in detail the learning about process,journey and outcomes so that other PRUs can identify the key steps for their work in introducing RA. The learningis about:

� how the steering group worked – and how this could be replicated at the local level

� the role of trainers in the varied contexts of PRUs

� developing methods of judging outcomes – and the quality of the RA work.

But the report also reflects on how both the funded pilots and the unfunded pilots worked together and sharedpractice. In times of great resource pressure the collaborative approach to problem solving at all levels is criticaland this report points to how it can be done.

But in the end this work is all about young people in our PRUs – and this work has helped many of them developproblem solving skills, conflict resolution knowledge and build better relationships with other pupils and staff. I congratulate Luke Roberts in chairing this work and all those involved in supporting and implementingRestorative Approaches in PRUs.

I commend this report to other PRUs so that other young people can have the benefits of this important work.

Foreword

1

John d’Abbro Chair of the Pan London Back on Track Project

2

Foreword 1

About the Steering Group 3Back on Track: Restorative Approaches Steering Group Members: 3

The challenge for the workstream 5What is a Restorative Approach? 5

What is a PRU? 5

Creating the Restorative Approaches workstream 61. The selection criteria: 6

Leadership: 6

Structure: 6

Culture: 6

2. Creating a monitoring and evaluation process. 8

The funded pilot areas: PRU profile 12Brent 9

Camden 10

Sutton 10

Non-funded pilot area - Croydon 12

Models of implementation 14Brent 14

Camden 14

Sutton 16

Croydon implementation model 20

Funded pilot areas - staff findings 21About the PRUs 21

Restorative Approaches in the pilot areas 24

Participation in restorative meetings 26

Staff participation with pupils 26

Staff participation with parents 26

Staff participation with other members of staff 27

In the non-funded area 28

Staff focus group 29

Contents

Trainers’ perspective: Transforming conflict 31

Pupils’ perspectives 32

Findings and recommendations 34Restorative Approaches and the spectrum of behaviour in PRUs 35

Staff development 35

Since the evaluation 35

Recommendations 35

Implementation 35

Post-Training 36

Restorative case studies from the Pupil Referral Units 37

Back on Track: Restorative ApproachesSteering Group MembersLuke Roberts, chair: Restorative Approaches andProblem-Solving Workstream

I have been involved in the development ofRestorative Approaches (RA) in the UK for a number ofyears now, as a practitioner, trainer, researcher andconsultant. I have seen its value in a wide range ofissues in schools. I was delighted to be asked tooversee the development of restorative practice inPupil Referral Units in London by the Back on TrackAdvisory Group. As chair, my task was put to me simplyby a PRU Head teacher: ‘I need an idiot’s guide toRestorative Approaches for my PRU’. Therefore, thisreport aims to be a practical guide for PRUs wishing toimplement and develop restorative practice in theirsetting, using PRU specific research.

In building a steering group to oversee the Back onTrack: Restorative Approaches and Problem-SolvingWorkstream, I have been fortunate to have a diversegroup with a wide range of expertise. This has includedPRU Heads, PRU co-ordinators of restorativeprogrammes, academics, the Metropolitan Police,behaviour and attendance consultants, and the PrisonReform Trust acting as our independent monitor tochallenge our thinking and assumptions from anoutside perspective.

The Restorative Approaches and Creative ProblemSolving Steering Groups members:

Name: Sandy Pepper and Mark Hartill, MetropolitanPolice Service (MPS).

We support the work of Back on track in PRUs and cansee the benefit to MPS in dealing with challengingyoung people and giving support to staff.

We are both involved in developing and deliveringRestorative Justice for the MPS. Being involved inBack on Track provides an opportunity to enhance ourknowledge and pass on ideas and good practice from apolice perspective

Our increased knowledge and understanding ofRestorative Practices from other experts involved inthe project and the pilot schools have enabled us to

progress the implementation of Restorative Justice inthe MPS. This has led to pilot projects beingestablished in two boroughs, leading to a London-wideroll-out in the next 12 months.

Name: Peter Jones - Head teacher for Phil EdwardsPRU, and Sian Thomas, previous Head of VictoriaHouse Primary PRU, representing the Croydon PRUs.

Full and active members of the project from thebeginning, wanting to see this develop as part of theservice Croydon PRUs offer.

For Peter, it is to continue to embed RA into PhilEdwards with a view to the PRU becoming a localresource for schools.

For Sian: it is to expand my expertise in methods ofmanaging to resolve conflict within the schoolenvironment. I now have a working understanding ofRestorative Approaches.

Name: Dr Kimmett Edgar – Prison Reform Trust,independent advisor.

Reason for participating in the project: I amcommitted to developing and expanding the use ofrestorative justice.

Some of the questions I asked during the process mayhave helped to focus on the restorative outcomes ofthe project. I hope that I shared enthusiasm for thisground-breaking approach to PRUs. I saw verydifferent school environments adapt and applyrestorative justice to serve a range of objectives.

Lessons I have taken from the project – particularlythe sensitivity required to move the culture – will helpme in promoting greater use of restorative justice inprisons.

Name: Dr Dawn Jennifer – Anti-Bullying AllianceRegional Advisor London.

Reason for participating in the project: Interest inRestorative Approaches and addressing bullying,contributing to the evaluation and interviewing theHead teachers.

3

About the Steering Group

4

group was a privilege – to hear the experiences ofcolleagues from other PRUs. I have already fed backsome of the thoughts and ideas from the participatingPRUs to our RU in Hackney.

To build on the links made with the three participatingPRUs by arranging mutual visits (with Hackney PRUs)to share experiences, knowledge and resources.

I would also like to thank Graham Robb and Johnd’Abbro as Chairs of Back on Track for their supportand encouragement throughout. Also to Fern Edwardsat London Councils for her support and management ofthe Back on Track work.

Having the right people at the right time in the rightplace is crucial to success; all those involved wantedthis to be a success and I have valued their expertiseinsightfulness and realism of working with and inPRUs. Finally, I would like to thank the Heads, staffand pupils who participated in this project. Withoutthem we would not have this research and theirexperiences of restorative approaches. All of thoseinvolved have wanted to see this project make adifference to PRUs and the young people acrossLondon. We believe that this report contributes to theevidence base and successful implementation ofRestorative Approaches.

Name: Alan Clode - Victoria House PRU

Reason for participating in the project: Whole staffreceived RA training and was part of a non-fundedpilot. I have enjoyed the shared practice – which Itook away and implemented at Victoria House.

Next steps for me after the project are to continuewith Circle Time in every class every morning using RAlanguage where relevant. Continue with RA referralsystem in place, but keep on pushing it to avoid aslip-back into old ways. Offer RA to mainstreams aspart of our new pilot scheme as a behaviour supportlink team.

Name: Lawrence Archibald, Jackie Lynch – The Park Campus, Lambeth.

Reason for participating in the project:

For Lawrence:- I was asked to join the project/steering group to give our expertise and knowledgearound restorative approaches as the B.O.T funding wasaimed at implementing restorative approaches in threeschools. On a personal level it was a real pleasure anda learning curve to be:

� invovled in such a productive and important project

� to be part of a group that contained so much diverseexperience and knowlegde which I took a lot from

� to know that my experienece and knowledge wasvalid enough to be asked to be part of such anexperienced and high ranked personnel group

For Jackie: The participation in this project made merealise just how much I have learned over the time Ihave been using the restorative approach in mysetting. I was able to confidently share my knowledge,and also look at the implementation in other settings.I enjoyed working with the Heads of other PRUs andknowing that they valued my advice and suggestions.Restorative approaches have had a positive effect inthe PRU that I work in and a positive effect on theschools that have implemented it. I wish all involvedgreat success for the future.

Name: Terence Bevington - Hackney Learning Trust

Hackney applied to be one of the pilot PRUs, but werenot selected. We were interested in still being a part ofthe Workstream to share our experiences and learnfrom other PRUs’ experiences.Personal success: Facilitating the final staff focus

The two big challenges of this workstream were:

1. What are restorative approaches?2. What is a Pupil Referral Unit?

These two questions shaped the workstream processand its model of evaluation.

What is a Restorative Approach?

The term ‘Restorative Approaches’ started to be used ineducation, particularly mainstream schools, as it ismore flexible than the term ‘Restorative Justice’. Theterm ‘restorative justice’ has been used in the criminaljustice system to identify a range of processes whichthe Restorative Justice Council defines as:

Restorative processes bring those harmed by crime orconflict, and those responsible for the harm, intocommunication, enabling everyone affected by aparticular incident to play a part in repairing the harmand finding a positive way forward.

However, the term restorative justice has often focusedon clear victim/offender roles. The steering group wasaware that the term restorative approaches was usedin schools, where it was not clear who started theincident or what harm had been caused. The steeringgroup came to its own definition which is:

“A way of preventing and resolving conflict, whichallows individuals to resolve differences. It develops thelanguage of emotion and allows people the time tocollect thoughts and feelings. There is a calm resolutionprocess where everyone is listened to and usually theresult is a point where issues are resolved and peoplecan move on.”

This definition allowed us to look at what approacheswere used to prevent harmful behaviour as well as howthe school community responded to conflict andbullying behaviour. There is also the recognition thatthe approach used will not work in every incident, forthe participants involved. There has been no researchdone specifically in PRUs on implementation orsuccesses of restorative approaches, which leads us toour second question:

What is a PRU?

To those working in a PRU this may seem a really sillyquestion. However, for the steering group this was areal challenge. It is difficult to measure success if youdon’t know what to measure it against, and thecontext of PRUs is very different to both mainstreamand special schools. PRUs deliver a range of servicesacross a wide variety of age groups, geographies andpupil needs. These services include providing educationto excluded pupils, helping pupils return tomainstream education, working with school-phobicpupils, teenage mothers, one-to-one teacher support.Unlike mainstream schools, PRUs’ services support awider variety of young people for different periods oftime, some for six weeks, a year or throughout asignificant period of a young person’s life to help gainqualifications.

The constant changing nature of PRUs meant that wecould not compare like-with-like, for example, by pupilpopulation, as PRUs vary in size and amount of timespent on site. Nor would we able to compare outcomesfor pupils as some would be there for very shortperiods of time while others can be there for themajority of their school education. Using exclusion asa measure of success was not deemed suitable by theHead teachers involved in the project, as this wouldnot take into account the holistic aspects ofrestorative approaches such as learning, orimprovements in staff performance. We thereforefocused our research of the potential pilot areas onstaff values, perceptions and skills as they are themost constant aspect of PRU life.

5

The challenge for the workstream

6

Creating the Restorative ApproachesworkstreamThe work of the steering group would be to allocate£30,000 to each pilot area. It was also decided tohave a non-funded area to see what could be achievedwithout the start-up costs being covered. The steeringgroup was concerned that, because of the short life-span of the Workstrea, money should be spent onactual delivery to show evidence of what restorativeapproaches can do in PRUs. The steering groupimmediately focused on two key tasks:

1. Develop selection criteria for PRU to be funded.

2. Create a monitoring and evaluation process

1. The selection criteria

Due to the changeable nature of PRUs, the steeringgroup looked to the work of Dr Dawn Jenifer who hasdevised criteria for looking at mainstream schools’abilities to take on Anti-Bullying projects. The fullliterature review is available in a separate document.

The key features for implementing change were:

Leadership:The ability of the school’s leadership to articulate thevalues and vision of the school are key to whether anew initiative is understood by staff and pupils assomething that fits within the existing framework.Furthermore, leadership also includes the ability of thesenior leadership and particularly the Head teacher toinclude others in decision-making about theintroduction of the new initiative. Inclusive leadershipleads to a shared ethos in which staff, across theorganisation, collaborate in the introduction ofrestorative approaches.

Structure:School structure plays an important part in the abilityto successfully adopt a new initiative or project.School structures can be identified as the leadershipstructure, forms of communication, policies and accessto resources. The dominant structure of schools ishierarchical, with top down–management directing and controlling resources and initiatives. However,PRUs and schools that are able to adopt initiatives,and specifically the adoption of restorativeapproaches, recognise the need to adapt the school or PRU structure to incorporate this into theirorganisational vision.

Culture:The success of an initiative can be determined by howintegrated it has become in the school or PRU culture.If the culture of the organisation rejects the changebeing proposed, both the leadership and structuralchanges will not impact to the full extent, becauseleaders will feel undermined and structural changeswill be subverted.

When implementing, it is important to plan for culturechange such as:

� observed behavioural patterns when teachers interactin a staffroom, such as the language they use andthe rituals they establish

� the norms that evolve in working groups of teacherswith regard to lesson planning or monitoring theprogress of pupils

� the dominant values supported by a school, its aimsor mission statement

� the philosophy that, for example, guides thedominant approach to teaching and learning ofparticular subjects in a school

� the rules of the game that new teachers have tolearn in order to get along in the school or theirdepartment.

These three factors can be combined into workingmodels to assess the effectiveness of a PRU’s ability totake on restorative approaches.

The Circular Model:The Circular Model reflects an organisation that is self-aware and responsive and operates from a clearlyfocused rationale. The school is able to prioritize itscourse of action and is aware of the need for constantreview and evaluation of practice. The culture in theschool could be characterised as democratic with afocus on children’s participation in decision making.The school recognizes the negative consequences ofnot addressing the issues of bullying and violence andis committed to the process of change. The school hasan internal locus of control. A school operating fromthis model of readiness is likely to adopt andsuccessfully implement an initiative.

7

Figure 1. Models of readiness. (Source: Jennifer and Shaughnessy, 2005)1.

Circular Model The school clearly articulates its educational visionThe school ethos is explicit through all areas of school life. Emphasis isplaced on children’s participation and empowerment Emphasis on the wider curriculum and emotional literacy Places value on children’s social time outside the classroom to enhancelearning across the school dayA responsive and reflexive leadership and management style The school displays good knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses and canprioritise targets Strives for consistency between behaviour policy and practice An emphasis on communication and dynamic relationships with children,staff, parents, governers and the wider community Training and development is linked to the school review process The school rationalises and selects from initiatives at both national and local level

Corkscrew Model The school shares its educational vision The school ethos not always made explicit. Emphasis is placed on children’s participation Emphasis on the wider curriculum and emotional literacy An absence of supportive strategies that value children’s time outside the classroom A pragmatic ‘quick fix’ style of management The behaviour policy facilitates the review of practice An emphasis on communication with some evidence of parental support and community links Training as a mechanism for change and self-reflection The school selects from initiatives at both national and local level

String Model The school has difficulty in articulating its educational vision The school ethos is not explicit Emphasis is placed on academic achievement and the formal curriculumlittle emphasis is placed on the supportive strategies that value children’stime outside the classroom A strategic or autocratic style of management and inconsistencies betweenbehaviour policy and practice Limited evidence of systems and policies for the management of pupils andstaff. Ineffective communication between staff and professional isolation Limited evidence of home/school/community links The school has difficulty selecting from initiatives at national and locallevel and tends to become overloaded

Models Key characteristics

1 Jennifer, D., & Shaughnessy, J. (2005). Promoting non-violence in schools: The role of cultural, Organisational and managerial factors.Educational and Child Psychology, 22(3), 58-66.

The Corkscrew model:The Corkscrew Model reflects an Organisational culturethat fluctuates. The school is sometimes able toidentify action through self-reflection, but the actionis not always clearly focused. The culture in the schoolcould be characterised as pragmatic with someemphasis on children’s participation. While the schoolacknowledges the existence of bullying and violence,takes ownership of the problem, and identifies some ofthe negative aspects of its presence, it is ambivalentabout committing to the process of change. The schoolhas a locus of control that fluctuates between externaland internal input. A school operating from this modelof readiness is likely to either feel complacent aboutthe issues requiring change or to feel ambivalentabout adopting and implementing an initiative.

The String Model:The String Model reflects a fragile organisationalculture. The school has limited self-evaluation, andexperiences difficulty in identifying a clear course ofaction. The culture in the school could becharacterised as strategic, with little emphasis placedon children’s participation. The school is not yetsensitive to the bullying and violence experienced bytheir children and young people. However, others maybe aware of a problem, for example, parents or thewider community. The school has an external locus ofcontrol. A school operating from this model ofreadiness is unlikely to have much success withadopting an initiative.

Readiness report: literature review document isavailable as a separate document at:http://www.londonprus.co.uk/assets/media/Back%20on%20Track%20Final%20Report.pdf

A letter was then sent to all PRU heads in London toask for expressions of interest. Nine PRUs confirmedthey would like to be directly involved in the project.The Steering Group then identified from the nine, threepilot areas that fitted the selection criteria based onthe cyclical model.

In addition, these PRUs were from different parts ofLondon, had different age ranges and also differentorganisational models. This would allow the steeringgroup to look at specific and general learning pointsto be shared with the pilot areas and across London

2. Creating a monitoring and evaluation process

The challenges of evaluating a PRU have already beenmentioned above. However, trying to conduct any formof benchmarking to compare the three pilot areas waseven harder. Due to the different clientele each PRUhad, different lengths of stay, as well as changes incohort, a pupil evaluation was ruled out very quickly.Also, secondary evidence such as exclusion andattendance data was ruled out as other factors couldimpact on this, although it was thought this wouldstill have benefit to the individual PRUs.

The main focus of the evaluation would be staff, asthey were the one constant throughout theimplementation and development of restorativeapproaches. The evaluation methodology was asfollows:-

� Head teacher interviews

� staff focus groups

� staff questionnaire

The three methods were used at the beginning and endof the project to see if perceptions and practice hadchanged during the implementation of restorativeapproaches in each setting. Pupil interviews and focusgroups were conducted at the end of the evaluation tosee how pupils perceived the implementation ofrestorative approaches and its benefits.

8

BRENTPRU Name: Brent KS4 PRUPupils on roll: 36 (can be up to 50)Number of staff: 20Head teacher/ Teacher in Charge: Janis Mahony

Background to PRU:

From staff consultations report from BCYP

The PRU has endured many changes over recent yearsincluding: a move to a new building, a change inleadership and the traumatic loss of members of staffthrough illness. Events that would test the resilienceof any staff team, but particularly a small close knitteam that typifies many PRUs.

The PRU has a good reputation and has been rated asOutstanding by Ofsted.

The change in Head teacher has brought with it achange in management style which has been generallywell received. However, there have also been somemixed feelings among the staff.

The Head teacher is in the unique position of receivingfunding to develop Restorative Practices in the schooland she wishes to take full advantage of this ‘one-off’opportunity.

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches workstream:

� Head teacher’s belief that working in an emotionallyliterate way better meets the needs of students and staff.

� need for improvement in staff wellbeing

� need to improve learning

� need to reduce conflict

� need to develop consistent approach to conflict

� need to promote positive behaviour in students

� need to support staff, students and institutionthrough change and provide framework for that change

Biggest challenge:

� implementing restorative practice at an institution

which is going through a sustained period of change

� ensuring that staff are supported through thischange and are able to manage the process, and takeon challenges

� putting the approaches into practice and puttingstructures in place to support Restorative Practices

� it is a challenge to develop a no-blame approach,not only with students but also with staff

� the acceptance and practice of Restorative Practicescan challenge beliefs and values, but not everyonewill feel comfortable working in this way, and ittakes time to develop consistency of practice andcommitment

� building staff confidence in RP is difficult; we arenot yet in a position to provide data to show itseffectiveness

� RP not yet firmly embedded need to developstructures that do this and continue to buildcommitment in the staff team, and make studentsaware of the approach and why we are using it.

Success so far:

� inclusion of all staff (including administration andcook) in training

� involvement of mainstream schools and otheragencies in training

� “what do you need exercise” carried out withstudents and staff

� there is an understanding that RP is going to bedeveloped

� there is a greater level of support for RP amongststaff

� a high percentage of staff have taken up supervision

� circles have been used occasionally to discusscommunity issues

� it has informed staff practice and there are a numberof “converts”

� more staff are using RA language

� a number of full conferences have been run toresolve difficult situations between students andinvolved parents successfully.

9

The funded pilot areas: PRU profiles

� five themes are beginning to be part of normalpractice

Head teacher tip for implementation:

Ensure that staff are supported to adopt practices.

Contact details:

Janis Mahony :e-mail jm@pru.brent.sch.ukBrent KS4 PRUPoplar GroveHA9 9DB

CAMDENPRU Name: One One Five (and Eversholt Centre)Pupils on roll: 28 (across both centres)Number of staff: 9 F/T, 5 P/T (Teaching and Support),2 Admin and co-ordinationHead teacher/Teacher in Charge: Gaby Thomas

Background to PRU:

KS3 PRU with places for permanently excluded/managed move students and intervention places forstudents at risk of permanent exclusion from theirmainstream school. At our annex centre we alsocurrently offer places for students from day 6 of fixedterm exclusion, LAC students awaiting mainstreamplacement and students on intervention/re-engagement part-time placements from theirmainstream schools.

All our students have SEBD and some students haveadditional learning needs.

Reason for participating in Back on Track: RestorativeApproaches workstream:

We had tended to use a restorative approach whenhandling issues of conflict between students andoccasionally with staff and would use exclusion as alast resort. The approach was rather ad-hoc and only afew staff had received formal training. We saw theopportunity of developing an embedded approach asan excellent way to develop and enhance our currentway of working and were excited about the potentialopportunity to extend this work within our SEBDconsortium of provision and also to roll the approachout to mainstream schools through our outreach team.

Biggest challenge:

We felt it was very important that the whole staff teamwas properly trained and received at least two days oftraining – this is a big commitment when there are so

many other pressures for training. Of course, thefunding meant that we were able to cover supply andtraining costs to do this.

There was some challenge in getting all staff on boardwith the process but the quality of the training wereceived really helped to empower staff and to get“buy in”.

Success so far:

We have seen a reduction in sanctions and an increasein rewards being given. We have seen a significantdrop in serious incidents and exclusions. In particular,we have seen a drop in incidents of threateningbehaviour and violence.

Head teacher tip for implementation:

“The key to successful implementation is to ensurethat existing systems and procedures for behaviourmanagement are in place, are effective and areconsistently applied. From this point, with a wholestaff team that has been well trained and arecommitted to working in a restorative way, thisapproach can bring about significant changes for thebetter across a whole range of measures.”

SUTTON:

PRU Name: The Limes CollegePupils on roll: 100Number of staff: 55Head teacher/Teacher in Charge: Emma Bradshaw

Background to PRU:

The PRU works closely with schools and offers bothrespite and longer term Key Stage 4 programmes. Itoften has pupils returning to it after a period ofrespite and these pupils often get caught back up intodynamics from broken relationships that they were onrespite from and that have not been restored, betweenboth the staff and the pupil and between them andothers in their peer group. One of the key areas thatthe young people who access their education in thePRU have is a history of poor attachments /relationships. This is within their education, social andhome environments. Conflict is a familiar way ofinteracting for them and is a pattern of behaviour thatthey have learned to use to get attention. This meansthat conflict in the PRU is a common feature and a keyarea of work for all staff and young people alike.

10

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches workstream:

� to develop more restorative outcomes for students inthe PRU

� staff development

� develop more restorative approaches with partnersecondary schools

Biggest challenge:

� time

� some staff beliefs

� being given time to allow the process of change andimplementation

Success so far:

� all staff trained (one day)

� twenty five staff trained for four days

� starting to change beliefs and attitudes

� given us language and tools to implement in ournew building and future development

Head teacher tip for implementation:

� give time to process

� include sceptics as well as converted inimplementation group and lead staff

� Rome wasn’t built in a day and if it had been itwould have fallen down. Allow time to initiatechange and don’t go too fast; pace is important ;enough momentum to keeping moving forward, butnot so much that you lose people along the way.

11

PRU Name: Cotelands PRUPupils on roll: 40 + 40 (nursery)Number of staff: 8 teaching team [6 part-time],admin team – 3 [inc. 2 part-time], varying number ofnursery staffHead teacher/Teacher in Charge: Jenny AdamsonBackground to PRU: KS3 schoolgirl mothers andpregnant schoolgirls, KS4 Emotionally Based SchoolRefusers (mixed), 0-3yrs nursery.

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches Workstream:

Need to develop the emotional literacy of pupils byproviding them with the tools to solve conflict in theirschool situation and transfer these to other areas oftheir lives.

Biggest challenge:

Training a team of part-time staff.

Success so far:

Some highly effective RA meetings – seeing thesurprise on the faces of parents/carers who have notseen their sons/daughters behave in such a matureway in the past, when dealing with their difficulties.

Totally liberating not having to deal with incidentsusing the ‘Poirot approach’ – who did what to whomand when!

Head teacher tip for implementation:

Find a way of training your staff early on. Secure asfull a ‘buy in’ to the ethos and approach then buildinto your behaviour policy and procedures.

Contact details:

jennya@cotelands.croydon.sch.uk, 020 3252 2020.

PRU Name: Phil Edwards CentrePupils on roll: 90 approx. (see below)Number of staff: Teaching 22 (17.5 fte. - Home Tutorsnot included), Support 11 (10.8 fte.)Head teacher/Teacher in Charge: Peter Jones

Background to PRU, based on 4 sites:

Sylvan Road: KS3 & 4 mainly permanently excludedstudents (48)

Croydon Digital: KS 4 on-line teaching service forstudents unable to attend school (30)

Bridge to School: KS3 early intervention support (10)

Hospital School: based in Mayday Hospital supportingstudents on the Rupert Bear Ward (approx. 450 peryear)

Home Tuition: individual support for students unableto attend school for either medical reasons or awaitingSEN placement (approx.

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches workstream:

Wanted a different way to resolve conflict bothstudent/student and student/staff where the outcomeis a learning experience rather than thecrime/punishment model (although this has its place).

Biggest challenge:

Changing staff ‘mind set’ when dealing with conflict.

Finding time to work with students in a restorativeway during the very busy and ‘full-on’ day in a PRU.

Success so far:

All staff on the Sylvan Road and Bridge-to-School sitestrained. Some procedures amended. Some success withindividual cases.

Head teacher tip for implementation:

Need to secure ‘buy-in’ as early as possible. Train‘significant and influential’ staff initially then train asmany staff together as possible and amend policy andpractice as part of the training.

Contact details:

peterjone@philedwards.croydon.sch.uk 02087715603

PRU Name: Moving On PRUPupils on roll: 36 on siteNumber of staff: 16 (including support staff)

12

Non-Funded Pilot Area - Croydon

Head teacher/Teacher in Charge: Sue WellingBackground to PRU: Year 11 only, vocational focus

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches Workstream:

Rising fixed-term exclusions, not leading toimprovement in behaviour. Offer of a focused strategyto parents when dealing with poor behaviour.

Biggest challenge:

To recognise that solution focused strategies arebeneficial to all parties. Gaining co-operation from allparties. Time for implementing conferences.

Success so far:

� delivered sessions to Parents Forum

� delivered session to students

� used RA pre- and post- fixed term exclusion

� diffusing potentially violent behaviour

Head teacher tip for implementation:

Keep the item high on staff team agenda whendiscussing issues of behaviour management.

Contact details:

s.welling@movingonschool.co.uk

PRU Name: Victoria HousePupils on roll: 45Number of staff: 27 (including outreach team)Head teacher/Teacher in Charge: Rachel Thorne

Background to PRU: Primary PRU – KS1 in off-sitemainstream school, KS2 on site.

Mixture of full-time and part-time children. Alsooutreach intervention team working in schools.

Reason for participating in Back on Track:Restorative Approaches workstream:

Trying to develop a more restorative approach tobehaviour and develop children’s awareness of impactof behaviour on themselves and others.

Biggest challenge:

Relationships between children – very low emotionalliteracy.

Changing roll – reintegration. High level of SEN

children awaiting SEN placements – mainly Autistic.

Success so far: Introduced circle time in all classesevery day – developing the language of RA.

Started a referral system for the use of RA for recurringand serious incidents.

Head teacher tip for implementation: Celebratesuccess! Constant reminders – staff meetings,assemblies, displays.

Contact details:

aclode.306@lgflmail.org 020 86860393

13

BRENT

The Brent model of implementation was to develop asmall steering group to support the then new Headteacher to implement restorative approaches. Brentalso used a voluntary sector organisation to doseparate evaluation on emotional needs of staff.

Figure 2: Brent Steering Group Model:

The Brent PRU had been rated by OFSTED as‘Outstanding’, and the Head teacher recognised thatthe staff team had been through significant upheaval.They were also now faced with a new Head teacher andexpected to take on a new approach to behaviourmanagement. This can lead to staff feeling vulnerableand threatened by any change, but particularly onewhich may seem time-consuming and unfamiliar. TheHead teacher has focused on developing andsupporting the staff with supervision and counsellingto create a support structure for staff as theyimplement restorative approaches.

The introduction of restorative approaches to deal withstaff-pupil conflict is always challenging. In Brent thishas been used with success to repair the damage donewhen this relationship breaks. The impact ofrestorative approaches has supported the school’sdiscipline structures. As the Head teacher indicated,this means that when asking for pupils to hand intheir phones, this is based on staff having betterrelationships with pupils, which creates trust ratherthan resorting to threatening punitive sanctions as ameans of getting pupils to hand in their phones.

What has happened?

Staff Training:

� almost half the staff had training in conferencing inJuly 2010

� all staff training Sept 2010 (1day) Jan 2011 (2 days)

� seven mainstream schools sent representatives totraining

� YOT, Connexions and Local authority sentrepresentatives to training

� Head teacher ran training in mainstream school.

Voluntary sector partnership with Centre for PeacefulSolutions: Work delivered by CPS included:

� conducted staff interviews, produced report

� facilitated RP meetings

� conducted behaviour observations

� coached staff

� supported in implementation of mobile phone rule –consulted parents, students and staff.

Brent Centre for Young People and Adolescents

� provides one day a week support

� provides counselling service for students

� provides supervision for staff (offered to all staff).

Brent Head teacher perspective:

The Head teacher recognised that the success of theBrent pilot would be based on “getting it right with

14

Models of implementation

Steering groupLA - mainstream school

Brent centre for peaceful solutions2 PRU staff

Brent centre for adolescent and young people

PRU Head

Key stage 4 Staff

staff”. To do this, the head recognised the need tobuild up staff resilience. As a new Head teachercoming in with a new initiative the Head teacher’sperception was that “staff were comfortable with thestatus quo, that is, an authoritarian style ofmanagement and resistance to an approach which iscompatible with the introduction of RA, as someconsidered it weak. She thinks “When I came herepeople wanted it to be what they were used tobecause, if it isn’t authoritarian, if you’re not saying“this is what we’re doing, this is the way we do it,then you’re not really in charge”. The Head teacherused her funding for training, but also additionalsupport mechanisms. This support is now being offeredto staff in the form of “supervision”, as a “space toexplore it [RA] in a way that’s safe”. While attendanceis voluntary, the Head teacher’s approach is clear: “I’mnot making it so people have to [do it] but I’m sayingthat I’m doing it, so you do it. A number of practicesto support the introduction of RA with staff, namelysupervision sessions and a work-based discussiongroup for all staff, and coaching for the SLT have been put in place to build sustainability inthe PRU.

Staff training: Since the Time 1 interview, North-westPRU staff has received the 1-day training for all staffin September 2010 and the 2-day training for all staffin January 2011: “So that means that the bulk of staffhave been trained in doing conferencing and all staffhave had three days training and that includes twonew members of staff who are quite crucial, my deputyand behaviour and attendance manager.

The staff perspective: Brent teacher interview –26th February 2011

Teacher (T) – it was in September 2009, I think wehad two initial weeks where we went off site and hadtraining. We were initiated into the practices. Thetraining was good.

Interviwer (I) – Since then how has it changed in theway you deal with YP?

T – It took a while for it to be intrinsic, whereas nowit’s very natural. A culture needs time to embed for itto come naturally. It has changed the way I askquestions and how I reflect.

I – Do you think there are particular situations that itworks well for?

T – Yes, where two boys were having a fight over aperiod of a week, due to gang issues, you can set up ameeting to resolve the issue. When it’s used more as apreventative, it works a lot better. If boys aren’tgetting along it’s useful.

I – In terms of staff, how do you think they felt aboutmaking a shift to becoming a Restorative PRU?

T – There was natural resistance, including myself.There will always be doubt, but it was something new.There is still an element of the past, but we’reincorporating. Pupils are taking responsibility for theiractions and reflecting. They have to say what they did.Staff were somewhat resistant about something new,but with time it gets to grow on you and you findyourself doing the things automatically

I – In terms of staff resistance, what would yourecommend to other PRUs?

T – If some senior leaders can lead on restorativepractice and show the benefits on how it works, peoplewould be more willing to get involved. If shown how itbenefits them, they’ll be more accepting of what canbe done.

I – How have pupils responded?

I – Well, a lot less aggressively, an opportunity to offload. It’s taken out the blame culture. Focus on whatthey were thinking at the time. They have to look atthe emotional aspect of it, it’s hard for them toverbalise it. A lot of the boys are big tough boys whodon’t show emotion.

I - If there was one recommendation you’d give toheads, what would it be?

T – To give it time to grow. If the expectation is thatit will change within six months, it’s not going towork. It needs time to evolve into somethingsignificant. People need time to get used to thelanguage for the fluency. It took me months to stopthinking about what to ask next. I now know how toask the right questions. Staff need opportunity topractice, even amongst themselves, get some fluencyand let it grow.

15

CAMDEN

The Camden model of implementation was focused onan outreach model which would allow for roll-out intomainstream schools, as well as working with the LocalAuthority.

Figure 3: Camden model of implementation.

The use of rewards and sanctions also used a proxyindicator showed the following:

Figure 5: Use of Red Cards

16

Steering groupTwo outreach officers

Head teacherBehaviour and Attendance lead

Co-ordinator other centreS.T.M

Behaviour and Attendance Outrech Team

Key Stage 3PRU

PrimarySchools

SecondarySchools

The Camden KS3 PRU from the outset was very keen toco-ordinate their in-house training with developingoutreach services. The advantage of having a small buthigh functioning team meant staff buy-in happenedvery quickly. The Camden pilot also looked at theimpact of restorative approaches on their presentbehaviour system (rewards and sanctions) as a proxyindicator. Results showed: Very significant reduction in incidents (non-exclusion) in Autumn Term 2010: 17 compared to Autumn Term 2009: 52, reduction of67 per cent. The level of attendance also increased by6 per cent over the same period.

Figure 4: Camden Pupil Incidents.

This means there has been a 65 per cent reduction inthe use of red cards during the autumn term. However,there has also an increase in the use of rewards(known as smilies).

Figure 6: Use of smilies.

2009

Red card sanction 2009 Red card sanction 2010

Pupil Incidents

2010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Number of incidents in Autumn term

52

17

250

200

150

100

50

0

238

83

Rewards 2009 Rewards 2010

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

89

289

Camden Head teacher perspective:

The Camden PRU had shown rapid progress inembedding practice within the PRU over theimplementation time. In the summer term 2009/2010,having piloted the use of RA with staff who hadalready been trained in March 2009, the SteeringGroup realised that RA “needed to be embeddedwholeheartedly in our practice, so we revised ourbehaviour policy and various other bits of policies likethe anti-bullying policy”.

In addition to the staff training, two key practiceswere introduced to students:

1. Circles: Initially, a lot of time was spent in classworking in circles “thinking about what we need tohave a successful classroom, unpicking what needsactually mean and talking about feelings, to try andextend their [students’] vocabulary around beingable to express themselves more openly”. We start the week with a circle and we close theweek with a circle with all the students and all thestaff together on a Monday and Friday. Our Fridayassembly is now in a circle and we always have a go-round. Each class also starts the morning, first thing, with a 20-minute circle. The staffteam also uses circles for meetings with the clinical psychologist.

2. Class agreements: After about one to two weeks ofworking in circles the notion of class agreementswas introduced. The class agreements were based on“Brainstorming what they [each class] need in orderto be able to give of their best”. Brainstormingresults in about seven or eight different statementsfor each class, and are revised every half term. Inaddition, as part of the class agreement, “Each classnow has a social target, a class social target, whichwill be something they need to do in order toachieve their class agreement”. Social targetschange quite regularly, according to the behaviouralneeds of the students. Once the class agreementshad been agreed in each tutor group, support staffintroduced the “Actual restorative enquiry process -why you might do it in this way and what it means”

Outreach Support:

In terms of the wider community, the use of RA hasmoved out of the PRU and into local schools, as perthe PRU Action Plan. For example, the Steering Grouphas started to work with a number of secondaryschools in the borough. The Head teacher said“…we’ve rolled it out now in three of the secondaryschools. So not with whole school teams because

that’s too much to ask, but with 20 or so staff at atime so we’ve been doing twilight training sessionsand we’ve developed lots of resources. I mean, it’s verydifficult to have a whole school doing the intensity oftraining that we did so we’ve developed more off theshelf, little bits of things that they can be using inschools. We know that that’s not the whole picture,but it’s a start”. In addition, the PRU has deliveredtraining to other services, for example, “we’ve justgiven training to the primary learning support serviceand they’re developing their training to go back out toprimary schools as well. So there’s quite a movementout. It certainly hasn’t just been here”.

Parents and Pupils:

In addition, the PRU’s school home support worker hasdeveloped a leaflet and a pack on RA at home forparents and carers outlining RA and the use ofrestorative language. The aim of working with familiesis to strengthen the home/school partnership in termsof managing student behaviour, and to support the useof RA principles in the home such that the approachused in the PRU is reinforced at home. The schoolhome support worker has also had one restorativemeeting between a parent and a child. She is workingwith the clinical psychologist towards a restorativemeeting with two parents and a child, so really usingthe same approaches to support parents at home.

Staff training: Once the PRU felt prepared with theirpolicies they worked towards a launch point inSeptember, which was to include the two-day trainingfor the remainder of the staff. As preparation for thetwo-day training, staff received an introduction to RAfrom the Steering Group (who had previously receivedthe five-day training), followed by a half-day trainingin RA with trainers from the training company.Following this, time was put aside for the staff team to think about how RA was going to be launched withthe students. A launch was planned that would takeplace over the first two to three weeks of the autumn term 2010.

17

SUTTON:

The Sutton model had a multi-agency steering group,which then worked with the PRUs implementationgroup. The implementation group oversaw the trainingof four different training cohorts of staff.

Figure 7: Sutton implementation model.

The challenge for the Sutton PRU has been to launchan initiative whilst going through a new buildprogramme. This has meant preparing staff to put anew culture in place when the school moves.

The challenge was implementation for Sutton, whichhas already engaged in tackling domestic violence,which the majority of pupils have had experience ofdirectly. This raised a challenge in marrying theexisting initiative, (which staff have already spenttime and energy on) with new initiatives, i.e.restorative approaches.

18

Figure 8: Bring initiatives together in PRUs.

LA steering group

Behaviour support

Police

Implementation group

Head teacher, multi-agency officer

Deputy HeadHead of KSF3

Group(x8 staff)

Group 1(x8 staff)

Group 2(x8 staff)

Group 3(x8 staff)

Leadershipvision on how to combine both

Existinginitiative

Newinitiative

Sutton Head teacher’s perspective:

At the time of the interview, approximately half of thestaff had received/were receiving four days’ worth oftraining in RA. Of the staff that had been trained, theHead teacher recognised that, while some hadresponded more quickly than others, others will needmore support: “We’ve acknowledged that we will bespending some of this year’s money on furthersupervision and support from the trainer”. The traininghas also promoted a debate among staff about howappropriate an RA approach is for a PRU. For example,the Head teacher said: “Yes, I guess it’s promoting alot of debate and continues to promote a lot ofdebate. Also I think sometimes they [the staff] wonderwhat would be that much different to what we alreadydo. Sometimes, for some staff, there’s a scare about‘this is what we’re going to, we don’t see this as anappropriate response in every circumstance’. There willstill need to be structure and consequence and we’renot saying that it’s going to totally eradicate exclusionalthough we do not permanently exclude now”.

With regard to involvement in the Back on Trackproject, the Head teacher identified this as a keysupport. She said: “It’s really helpful to have someonecoming in challenging your implementation by saying‘so why are you doing it like that and what’s worked,what hasn’t worked?’ Related to this was thebackground information that being involved in theproject provided. For example: “You know, We’re notexpecting to see people wafting around restoring! It isthe knowledge and information that the trainer givesand the project has given us about. Actually all of theresearch says [it could take] 5-7 years and there’ssomething for me about, if you’re going to create asustainable model, it’s creating a bank of staff that aretrained but then it’s also building that into yourtraining programm.”

A spectrum of response to behaviour?

“Actually good restorative is much harder than bogstandard punitive and good restorative isn’t soft andfluffy and letting people off the hook. It’s about bothcoming together and actually meeting in the middleAnd good restorative I think it has got a foot in eachcamp because there are consequences andresponsibility for behaviour. But it’s also learningabout and acknowledging feelings in other people in asituation and how do I learn from this and moveforward and what could be different next time. All ofthat stuff is what a good PRU should be doing.”

19

Croydon implementation model

The implementation of the restorative approachesproject in the non-funded area was led by the five PRUHeads who were all trained before rolling this out tostaff.

Figure 9: Process map of Croydon PRUs’ implementation.

To develop a service model across the borough, a one-day conference was held to explain how each PRUwould be developed across the secondary PRUs, whicharound 100 staff attended. This allowed, for the firsttime, networking opportunities across the PRUs andstaff valued this immensely. It also identified staffwho were very keen to adopt the approach and staffwho were very resistant. A follow-up session was held in each PRU to discuss the day and plan furtherimplementation. The primary PRU needed additionalsupport and team building before they could begin training.

The next step was a three-day training course for PRUstaff to develop restorative language and restorativemeetings. As one member of staff said ‘I didn’t get itat the one-day conference, and I did not know whatwe were talking about on the follow-up session in thePRU, so I came on the three-day training just to bedifficult, but now I get it and we need to take thisback to the PRU and get all staff trained!” The traininghelped staff to understand through theory and practice

20

how they could use it in their settings when workingwith their pupils. The ‘training for trainers’ courseadded a second level for practitioners to develop theirskills, and share practice for in-house training in theirsettings. Two of the five PRUs developed this model. Abig challenge for staff was having enough practitionerexperience and then being able to share learning as atrainer. Management of the non-funded area was donethrough a steering group of practitioners. However,without a designated co-ordinator, the networking andsupport opportunities have not been developed tocreate a restorative service across the five PRUs.

Head teacher Meeting of 5 PRUs

From the head teacher meetingthey all agreed that they neededto be trained. Head teachercommissioned three day training course for heads.

PracticeStaff trained to use their skills

in a range of incidents inCroydon PTRUs

Initial one day conference for all secondary PRUsThe one day conference

allowed staff to network andshare idea on how to create

a service across the scondary PRUs.

Three day ‘Training theTrainer’ course

Staff trained to deliver half-day/one-day course withcoaching and support skills.

3 Day Training Course for key staff

The three day course was forPRU staff, however mainstream

schools were also invited to attend.

In PRU trainingTrained staff begin deliveringINSET and twilight sessions in

their individual units.

A staff questionnaire was undertaken in June 2010 (61staff completed) and a follow-up questionnaire wasconducted in February 2011 (62 staff completed). Dueto the small sample size, results are to be treated asindicators only. Due to the short-time scale of theproject, the questionnaire does not reflect changesover an entire academic year, but gives a snap-shot of progress.

About the PRUs:

The perceptions of leadership in 2011 (Head teacherand Senior Leadership) ranged from “very poor” to“very good”, with higher proportions of teachers andadministrative/other staff rating leadership as “verygood” compared with other staff. In the previous yearno staff had rated the leadership as very poor.

The majority of staff agreed that there was variabilityin the majority of students’ behaviour. However, therewere differences in staff responses within job groups.For example, a small minority of teachers thought thatthe majority of students were “not well-behaved” or

“badly behaved” compared with others in their jobgroup. This is compared to 2010 where a smallminority of teachers though that pupils were “well-behaved”.

In terms of clarity of the PRU’s behaviour policy,responses ranged from “not very clear” to “very clear”,with more senior managers responding “very clear”compared with staff from other job groups. A minorityof staff were not very clear about their PRU’sbehaviour policy in both surveys. In terms of thevision of the PRUs: “A high level of participation indecision making, informal communication networksand role fluidity” best described staff’s understandingin the large majority of cases. A few senior managers,teachers and administrative/other staff viewed thevision of the PRU as “a centralised decision makingprocess with no room for flexibility, autonomy andcreativity”. And, a minority of teachers andadministrative/other staff viewed the vision as lacking in opportunity for them to contribute to policy and practice.

21

Funded pilot areas - staff findings

Figure 9.1. Vision of the PRU (n = 53)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0Senior Managers

Responses

Teachers Support Staff Admin/Other staff

Centralised

Participation

Few Opportunities

11.1

88.9

77.8

100

11.1 11.1 15.4

38.5

46.2

Although nearly all staff agreed with the statement“this PRU is a good place to work”, a very few“strongly disagreed” (3.3 per cent compared to 6.5 percent in 2010).

Furthermore, over half the staff agreed with thestatement that “this PRU is a safe environment” (56 per cent in 2011 compared to 63 per cent in2010); and nearly one-third responded “stronglyagree” (32 per cent in 2011 compared to 27 per centin 2010); a few “disagreed” (12 per cent in 2011compared to 10 per cent in 2010). However, furtherresearch would be needed to explore what staff meantby feeling safe in regard to pupils, parents, other staff,and other factors.

There was considerable disparity both within andbetween job groups regarding the best ways to handlestudents in conflict. For example:

� the majority of senior managers thought “punishingperpetrators” was the least efficient approach.

� the majority of senior managers and teachersthought “restorative approaches” was the mostefficient approach.

� the majority of support staff thought “a clearstructure of acceptable behaviour” and “restorativeapproaches” are the most efficient approaches.

� the majority of administrative/other staff thought“a clear structure of acceptable behaviour” was themost efficient approach.

� a minority of teachers, support staff andadministrative/other staff thought “punishingperpetrators” was the least efficient approach.

� few administrative/other staff rate “restorativeapproaches” as efficient.

In both questionnaires, the majority staff stated thatpupils’ behaviour varies. This is not surprising becauseof the nature of PRUs. However, further research onhow pupils’ behaviour changes over time in arestorative PRU was beyond the time limits of this project.

22

Figure 9.2. Ratings of the behaviour of the majority of students most of the time by job group (n = 56)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Senior Managers

Responses

Teachers Support Staff Admin/Other staff

Well-behaved

Quite well-behaved

Behaviour varies

Not well-behaved

Badly behaved

15.4

69.2

7.77.7

57.1

14.3

28.6

15

70

10

0

55.6

0 0 0 0 0 0

44.4

5

In response to the question “How confident are you indealing with conflict in your PRU?”, over one-third ofstaff responded “OK” (37 per cent compared to 50 percent in 2010) and over half replied “very” (57 per centcompared to 40 per cent in 2010). Very few responded“not at all” (3 per cent) or “not sure” (3 per centcompared to 9 per cent in 2010).

23

Types of conflict in 2011

All; any situation; classroom/minor conflicts - some seriousincidents; most types – physicalviolence less so

Any!; between pupil/pupil andpupil/staff member; classroomconflict; diffusing conflict beforeescalation; disruptive behaviour;most; motivating student to startwork; no conflict bothers me;physical altercations

Confrontation; verbal and physical;disagreement between pupils; kids; most

Any; between staff members;children or young people (they’renot really children) beingdisruptive or disrespectful;parent/child conflict

Types of conflict in 2010

Conflict among students; any; eclectic– variable, depends on situation; alltypes; student conflicts; staffingissues; anti-establishment behaviour -rules; students not following code ofconduct; conflict between staff opinion

Conflict within the classroom; conflictoutside classroom with support fromother staff; arguments; all types;student conflict; any; verbal arguments;escalation of anger; staff/studentconflict

Conflict among students; familyconflict; any conflict; arguments;behavioural; conflict between studentsand staff; non-physical conflict; notwanting to go to lessons; betweenstudents; any; one-to-one (not groups);arguments between young people

Don’t understand the question; groupor one-to-one; conflict with parents

Summary of types of conflictstaff feel most confident dealing with Job Group

Senior Managers

Teachers

Support staff

Administrative/other staff

Types of conflict

Restorative Approaches in the Pilot Areas: In terms of how much staff would say that they knewabout restorative approaches, knowledge ranged from“nothing” to “a lot”. Overall, teachers and supportstaff had more knowledge about restorative approachesthan staff from other job groups. Administrative/otherstaff had the least knowledge.

Staff results showed that over the period ofimplementation they became more involved inrestorative meetings, senior management participationhad increased by 11 per cent, Teachers by 7 per cent,Administrative and Support staff by 39 per cent onlysupport staff had decreased in participation.

24

Figure 11. Percentage of staff who have participated in a restorative approach by job group (n = 56) 2011

Figure 10. Percentage of staff who have participated in a restorative approach by job group (n = 59) 2010

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Senior Managers

Responses

Teachers Support Staff Admin/Other staff

60

30

10

15

75

63.2

26.330

0

70

5.5 10

Yes

No

Not sure

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Senior Managers

Responses

Teachers Support Staff Admin/Other staff

23

69

21.4

14.3

64.3

70

25

11

0

89

5 8

Yes

No

Not sure

The confidence of staff in the 2010 survey was largelydependent on having been trained. The need fortraining to facilitate skills and process is seen as amajor boost to confidence. Particularly important intraining is opportunities to watch and participate as arestorative facilitator. Staff specifically mentioned theuse of role-play with some really ‘enjoying’ theopportunity, whereas other members of staff ‘dread’acting in front of colleagues. However, the majority ofstaff acknowledged that role-playing as facilitator wasnecessary to help with learning the restorative processand receiving feedback on restorative practice.

However, the 2011 results show that training is notenough, unless supported by opportunities to practice.The knowledge of restorative approaches can becometheoretical, or worse be forgotten, as school staffcannot build up experience through practice.

25

A key feature of restorative approaches is therestorative meeting; this is most often between thetwo main parties in conflict. Staff were asked in thequestionnaire how confident they would be to act asfacilitator when dealing with conflict:

Do you feel confident to facilitate/act as a mediator in a restorative meeting?

Feelings of confidence (2011 Response)

If I had some practice, I would willingly get involved in a restorative meeting; notsure; not yet; think there are more qualified, experienced in this specific area thanteachers; yes

No; not quite yet but if I observed part of one first I would – need to brush up; yes

Fairly; possibly – more practice; yes “very”

No – no training received; no, unless attended training; training then I will; wouldneed to get more experience at it to feel more confident; yes

Job Group

Senior Managers

Teachers

Support staff

Administrative/Other

Party 1 Party 2

Member of staff as facilitator

Participation in restorative meetings:

Staff participation with pupils:

Staff participation in restorative meetings was highestwhen working with pupils. The confidence of staffincreased across the board, but particularly whenharmed by a pupil or as a support of the pupil. It isalways difficult to acknowledge when teachers mayhave caused harm to a pupil, but after restorativeapproaches training, there was an increase of 24 percent to meet with pupil.

Staff participation with parents:

The challenge of working with parents in PRUs is oftenharder than mainstream as parents may have had poorrelationships with the excluding school or school theyhave left. PRU staff have to work hard to build trustwith parents, and this can be particularly difficultwhen a conflict arises between a parent and memberof staff. These conflicts can also undermine therelations between pupil and staff. Staff willingness toparticipate in a restorative meeting with parentsincreased in confidence post training. See figure 13 below.

26

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Baseline Followup

66.1

48.453.2

85

72.2

82

Person harmed by a pupil

Person who has harmed a pupil

Supporter of a pupil

Staff Pupil

Facilitator

Figure 12: Staff Participation with pupils.

The results show a 25 per cent increase in staffwillingness to participate as a person harmed by aparents. A 23 per cent increase in staff willingness toparticipate as the person who harmed the parent, anda 30 per cent increase in willingness to support aparent in a restorative meeting.

Staff participation with other members of staff:

Restorative approaches are often seen as a pupilfocused approach. However, staff also identifiedpositive benefits to improve adult relationships withinPRUs. Restorative Approaches may add value to bothline-management process and add value to grievanceprocesses by creating a collaborative approach toresolving staff conflict.

27

Staff willingness to participate as person harmed byanother member of staff increased by 34 per cent. Asthe person who has caused harm to another member ofstaff by 30 per cent. Staff willingness to support amember of staff increased by 43 per cent. Theseincreases highlight the need for PRUs to consider theimplications restorative approaches as a humanresource strategy for managing conflict and disputesbetween staff, specifically post-training as this willclarify the non-adversarial nature of such meetings toresolving conflict and disputes.

Figure 14: Staff participation with other members of staff.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Baseline Follow-up

53.2

4244

96.4

72.276

Person harmed by a member of staff

Person who has harmed a member of staff

Supporter of a member of staff

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Baseline Followup

44

34 34

74.1

57.459.3

Person harmed by a parent

Person who has harmed a parent

Supporter of a parent

Figure 13: Staff Participation with parents.

In the non-funded area

The baseline survey showed a similar pattern, beforetraining less than half of the staff would engage witha parent who had harmed them in 2010; in 2011 thiswas increased by 21 per cent. The area of mostsignificant positive increase in restorative meetingswas in staff relationships across the board as harmed(37 per cent) as harmer (36 per cent) and as asupporter (28 per cent).

28

Figure 15: Non-funded area willingness to participate in restorative meetings 2010.

Figure 16: Non-funded area willingness to participate in restorative meetings 2011.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Person harmed by…

Percentages

Person who has harmed a…

A supporter of a…

54.5

68.263.6

59.1 59.154.5

42.5

54.5

68.2

Pupil

Parent

Member of staff

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Person harmed by…

Percentages

Person who has harmed a…

A supporter of a…

74.1

96.3

77.880

95

7066.7

91.7

75

Pupil

Parent

Member of staff

Staff focus group

The staff focus group constituted staff from all threepilot areas sharing their perspectives with theinterviewer on how the project had gone. The summaryof the discussion follows:

� All staff reported that the implementation ofRestorative Approaches in their PRU has had apositive impact on student behaviour, staff responseto behaviour and the general atmosphere in thesetting. The biggest impact was felt to be in thetype of communication that now happens in theirsetting. Staff and some students now use differentlanguage, there is more dialogue and students aregiven a voice and heard.

� All settings are now using circles with students for avariety of functions. Getting all staff on board wasfelt to be one of the biggest challenges, with allstaff receiving the same training presented as a wayof maximizing staff engagement.

� Another challenge was students’ low level ofemotional literacy; it was felt to be important toexplicitly teach students the skills and languagerequired to engage with restorative processes.

Challenges for staff:

29

Time

Pupil engagement

Size

Some settings have set aside a fixed time of the day forrestorative meetings to happen (e.g. at the end of the schoolday). Other settings have a named member of staff responsiblefor restorative meetings each day. The timing of the interventionis an important factor; it can be useful to allow some time forthings to calm down before trying to engage the students orstaff in a restorative process.

There was some frustration at how little students contribute inthe circles. Some students appear to consider themselves tootough to talk about needing or feeling anything.

If certain ‘cool’ students do not contribute, this tends to inhibitother students from contributing. It was mentioned that it is thelanguage of needs and emotions that may be the obstacle.The size of the PRU appears to be a factor in how quickly andhow widespread the approach can be implemented. In smallerPRUs it has been easier to train all staff more quickly and soensure that all staff are on board. In larger PRUs the trainingcycle is inevitably slower and this can stall progress as somestaff are working in this new way and other staff are awaitingtraining. It is easier in smaller settings for this to more quicklybecome the way of working of the whole staff team.

Advice for other PRUs

Staff offered the following advice to PRUs looking atimplementing Restorative Approaches:

� all staff must be trained so that there is a commonunderstanding and in order to avoid splits amongthe staff team

� the training must stay with staff, so will need to becontinually revisited

� visit other PRUs to learn from their experience

� give it time

� Train the young people

� put Restorative Approaches into theadmissions/induction process so that students areaware from the outset that this is how we work

� aim to use the approach proactively – it is not justabout responding to conflict, it is also aboutpreventing conflict.

30

I think it’s been one of the best initiativesthat I’ve ever seen implemented. It’s justpermeated through the whole thing. It’schanged our way of working. Because thetraining was so effective everybody got on board.

Teachers are taking more ownership ofproblems that are happening in theirclassrooms rather than just pushing it tosenior leadership.

Teachers are finding out more about theirpupils’ lives by asking these questions.

You’re trying to develop a culture and youdon’t turn the page of a book and develop aculture; it needs to nurture, it needs to grow.

Give it time. It’s a culture and you need timefor it to develop. If you work in anenvironment, like we all do, that’s veryconfrontational there isn’t a better approachto take away the tension.

Kids have started taking ownership of whatthey’ve done and realising that what they’vedone wasn’t right.

(In staff-pupil meetings) Staff may havemade a mistake, like we all make mistakes,and sort of accepted that, have recognisedwhere they were going wrong, and that’s beena very valuable experience.

The fact that you have a tight system givesyou the security of knowing, look, no matterwhat you do, we have a way of dealing withthis and you’re not going to shift us.

Quotes from the session

The three pilot areas decided to jointly commissionone training organisation, a number of organisationstended for this opportunity. This report does notrecommend any training organisation. The trainingcompany was asked to make observations from thetrainers’ perspective to inform the final report.

Pre-training

Establish a Steering Group comprising seniormanagement and representatives from key partnershipagencies and local schools at the outset. This groupshould be involved in shaping the course, take part intraining themselves and ensure that monitoring andevaluation procedures are in place even before thetraining commences so that base-line data is in place.

Establish a short and a long term strategy forimplementation, but recognise that the needs of theindividual PRU will change as the training progressesand staff start to practice the approaches

Encourage the senior leadership team to invite andrespond to any fears and concerns from the staff.

� positively embrace their fears and concerns

� outline what the training will involve

� share the vision

� discuss the positive benefits for the students andstaff, and Invite contributions

� ensure that everyone is aware when the training willbe taking place

� identify the most appropriate people to be trainedfirst.

All this will help staff link the training to currentpractice and will support the actual training-sometimes a lot of time can be wasted in the first fewtraining groups if staff on those first training groupsneed a lot of convincing that this is the approach forthem or that it is even going to work. It is importanttherefore to first train ‘the champions’ i.e. thoseenthused and those that are already working this wayand would welcome an opportunity to develop theirskills.

Training issues:

Train the Head teacher and the senior leadership teamfirst so that they can:

� ensure new policies and procedures are in place tosupport the staff as practice changes, or givepermission for staff to manage behaviour in a waythat may not be currently written in the currentpolicies (without these changes staff will be inbreach of policy)

� model a ‘restorative’ leadership style in the way theydeal with staff and students

� offer appropriate supervision

� work restoratively with parents, governors andoutside agencies

� liaise with other agencies and ensure consistency

� liaise with partnership schools to ensureconsistency.

Provide suitable training venues with enough space fora circle of chairs and either enough room to break outinto smaller groups, or with smaller break-out rooms inorder for skills practice to take place.

Post training

Unless those trained are supported and coached on aregular basis after the training only a very smallpercentage of those trained will successfully integraterestorative ways of working into their practice, andmaintain this restorative practice over time.

Each senior management team should plan acoaching/supervision programme for individual staff tofollow up the initial training. Individuals could beencouraged to keep a reflective diary, recordingrestorative conversations, interventions etc. this couldform the basis of a regular supervision session. Ifindividuals are not able, ready or willing to developrestorative practice these sessions could identify whatthey need in order to become so.

31

Trainers’ perspective: Transforming conflict

The pupil interviews were conducted across all threepilot areas. The pupil interviews are revelling on howwell pupils understand the restorative approachesinitiative in their setting. The interviews ranged fromYear 8 to Year 11 pupils. Interview techniques wereone-to-one, pairs and a focus group.

All pupil across the three pilots agreed that their PRUsare safe places. Environmental factors such as securityhelped them to feel safe, but the key-factors for safetywere having friends and the teaching staff. In one PRUit was clear that all pupils distrusted the police anddid not feel they are a factor to keep them safe, onlyone pupil reported direct involvement with the police.

When questioned about being in a PRU, pupils firstresponse was often that they don’t trust anyone.However when this was explored further they oftenidentified two members of staff who they trusted.However, pupils felt that the members of staff theytrusted were sometimes used as part of the behaviourmanagement ‘They get the nice people - nice peopleput pressure on you’.

The use of restorative approaches by the pupils variedacross the pilot areas. In Brent, two pupils who hadrecently been through a restorative meeting with theirparents and staff said the meeting was fair becauseeveryone got their points across, for a pupil in Suttonit was because teachers listened to both sides of the story :

32

Pupils’ perspectives

Interviewer: Why is that important? (teachers treatingyou fairly).

Pupil: To make the right decision on who startedsomething or how to punish properly.

Interviewer: What do you mean by punish youproperly?

Pupil: It depends on what you’ve done. If donesomething small, you wouldn’t have over the top punishment.

Interviewer: What would be over the top forsomething small?

Pupil: Three day exclusion.

Interviewer: What about in primary or secondary?

Pupil: If someone I was with had done something, I’dalso get the blame and that wasn’t fair. This was bothin primary and secondary school.

For pupils in the Camden PRU, when asked do youknow what a restorative meeting is? All pupils replied:‘Ahhhhhhh all the time with the restorative meetings’

The main reason for having a meeting would be ‘for afight or something’ and ‘staff want to hear both sidesof the story’.

The process of getting to resolution was also importantas one pupil commented: “You’re not arguing orshouting at each other. You’d agree what to do in thefuture. For example, if someone says, ‘I don’t want younear me’, you agree to try your best to avoid them.Someone suggests something and you decide - agreeor don’t agree.”

For pupils in PRUs getting to a resolution depended ontwo factors:

1. were we friends before the conflict, and

2. do we want to sort things out.

All pupils agreed that they would be happy to go to ameeting where it involved a friend because ‘that doesresolve stuff’. As one pupil put it ‘If I hate them (otherpupil) not going – if a fam (friend) then would notmind. Post-meeting, one pupil said you can tell it wassorted because ‘we’d play football’

All pupils interviewed were asked ‘what advice wouldyou give Head teachers thinking about usingrestorative approaches to deal with conflict orbullying’, these are the responses:

Pupil A: I wouldn’t give them any advice, I don’t liketalking to them; in mainstream I got annoyed talkingto them so I don’t bother.

Pupil B: I’d ask parents to come in and get pointsacross. At first it was tense but then after a while wegot to say what we wanted to say.

Pupil C: To understand it from both sides, somethingmust have happened to start it off.

Pupil D: Don’t ask students to tell them names, tellthem what happened but no names.

33

Restorative Approaches begins as a pupil-centredapproach. For those embarking on using restorativeapproaches dealing with pupils’ behaviour and conflictis the main goal. However, our work across the all thePRUs shows building staff confidence has benefits toworking with parents, but also improving staffconfidence in managing workplace conflict.

From the perspective of the Steering Group it isimportant that PRUs recognise their capacity to adoptan initiative - restorative or otherwise (see readinesscriteria). Getting the starting conditions right meansthat successful implementation permeates theorganisation’s culture and management structure,without having to trouble shoot problems later in thedevelopment process.

The importance of a whole community approach torestorative approaches highlights the need for theleadership of the school to offer supervision andtraining to staff to build confidence. This enablesrestorative practitioners to gain confidence in workingwith other members of staff and parents in conflictsituations.

Restorative Approaches is often seen as a behaviour-management tool. However the BoT PRUs showed thatthey are developing a wider understanding based onthe concept of relationships. Based on the peace workof Kathy Bickmore (Social Education 75, (1), pages 42-46, 2011) Often restorative approaches are aimed at

34

Findings and recommendations

relationship-making process where pupils, staffand/or parents are in direct conflict; such as bullyingor gang behaviour, it is at this point that a restorativemeeting is used to repair the harm caused and preventits reoccurrence in the future.

However, the KS3 used circle-time process at the startof the day as part of their relationship-promotingpractice to prevent conflict occurring by promoting co-operation, shared values and team-building. This alsohighlights opportunities for the early identifying ofpotential conflicts. The South PRU and the non-funded-pilot-area have started developing parentworkshops on restorative approaches linking into therelationship-building which support other processes inthe wider community to develop relationships,particularly post an incident such as building betterparent and community relationships with the PRU.

Figure 17: Relationship and conflict matrix (based onBickmore 2011).

Relationship making

Relationship building

Relationship promoting

The introduction of restorative approaches has aprofound effect on the organisational structure ofPRUs. The need for PRUs to address theirorganisational structure to implement restorativeapproaches, with its emphasis on listening,empowered and collective responsibility means –redesigning referral systems, timetables and policies.This has implications for how PRUs will implement thechange based on their present leadership models andorganisational culture. Experience in both mainstreamand PRUs shows that restorative approaches is leasteffective when individual practitioners work inisolation from both colleagues and lack of capacitywithin the organisational structure.

Restorative Approaches and the spectrumof behaviour in PRUs:

Restorative Approaches has been used in a widevariety of incidents to tackle the types of behaviourPRUs face on a daily basis. The case-studies at theback of this report show how staff have used theirskills to meet the needs of young people in conflict.The suitability of restorative approaches was for eachPRU in the pilot to decide, whether no restrictionswere to be put in place, or to allow the use ofrestorative approaches to meet the spectrum ofbehaviour met in PRUs. The implementation of trainingand the confidence of staff to use the approach havegrown over the life of the project. It is therefore adecision for each PRU to decide when best to userestorative approaches, based on level of skill andtraining and the ability of staff, in conjunction withthe creativity to adapt the process to meet the needsof pupils, parents and the school community.

Staff development:

The implementation of restorative approaches hasshown that the buy-in of staff is crucial to thesuccessful implementation of restorative approaches.The pilot areas have all shown the various challengesof building staff capacity. Including:

� the emotional development of staff

� staff resistance to a new initiative

� uncertainty of leadership’s expectations e.g. multi-initiatives at once

� rolling out training to large PRUs

� the challenge of time.

Allowing staff the opportunity to discuss theirconcerns and fears is central to the later adoption ofthe approach; all PRUs met some level of staffresistance, but welcomed the challenge. The benefitsto staff in building their capacity and confidence tomeet the challenges of pupils, needs to be supportedat a strategic level, particularly on-going reflectivepractice. Not everyone will understand the benefits ofrestorative approaches or the skills needed to use itfirst time; each PRU developed ways to support andcoach other members of staff to grow their ownknowledge base.

The use of restorative approaches to improve work-place relationships is a development that PRUs canutilise to explore the importance of getting the staffrelationship in a strong and supportive place, whenfaced with high levels of need from pupils. The abilityto manage and resolve staff conflict indicates thatPRUs should see restorative approaches as appropriatefor managing human resources as well as a pupil-focused approach.

Since the evaluation:

Although the three pilot areas were funded, the non-funded pilot showed what can be achieved by havingthe right knowledge. All the pilots have helped developstepping stones for the PRUs across Lond