Background
Methods
Case study
Participant sample and recruitment
Programme Theory/Logic Model Co-production | Programme Theory/Logic Model Confirmation | Participants who took part in both co-production and confirmation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 1 | Group 2 | |
Students | ||||||
Total students | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 7 |
Gender | ||||||
Male | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | – | 4 |
Female | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
Year group | ||||||
Year 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – |
Year 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | – | 2 |
Year 9 | – | – | 3 | – | 3 | |
Year 10 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Year 11 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – |
Year 12 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – |
Year 13 | 1 | – | N/Aa | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Staff | ||||||
Total staff | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
Gender | ||||||
Male | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – |
Female | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
Role | ||||||
Support staff b | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | – |
Teaching staff | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | – |
Form tutor | 1 | 1 | – | – | 2 | 2 |
Leadership role c | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – |
School governor | – | 1 | – | – | – | – |
Admin staff | – | – | 1 | – | – | – |
Data collection
Ethical procedures
Data analysis
Results
Identification of innovative local practice
Scoping review to identify programme theory; outcomes; contextual characteristics that influence programme theory and implementation
Causal mechanisms and outcomes
Contextual characteristics that influence implementation and programme theory
Reference; Study Type | Settinga | Contextb | Implementation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation Theoryc | Implementation Processd | Implementation Strategye | Implementation Agentsf | Implementation Outcomesg | |||
Bitel (2005) National evaluation report [20] | 28 schools (19 restorative approaches & 9 control); mixed urban and rural locations in England and Wales, UK | • Political: National commitment to addressing bullying and anti-social behaviour • Ethical: Britain values the idea of citizenship. Included in PSHE, part of the educational curriculum | Unclear | Intervention components varied, process of implementation unclear, but involved collaborations with youth offending teams and training | Schools determined the restorative approach they chose to adopt. Senior leadership commitment encouraged | Government funding, youth offending team staff, third sector staff (e.g. Connexions), school staff, students and parents | High levels of staff and student satisfaction with approach. Whole school approach seen as more effective to address antisocial behaviour than partial adoption |
8 schools; “satisfactory” or “good” performance as determined by the schools regulatory body (Ofsted) in London and south east England, UK | • Political: WHO recognition of bullying and significant impact on adolescent health. British policy context and national initiatives aim to reduce bullying in schools (e.g. 2009 Steer review reported on wide variation in approaches taken by schools to address bullying) | Unclear | Intervention inputs provided and school responsible for implementing these | External facilitator to build commitment among staff, specialist training for staff, training for students | Funding body, external facilitator, school staff and students | Intervention inputs reported as acceptable to staff and students | |
18 primary, secondary and special schools; varying rates of exclusion; situated across 3 rural and urban locations with varying degrees of deprivation in Scotland, UK. | • Political: Scotland has distinctive social history and educational priorities that draw on humanistic perspectives and sociological understandings of schooling and academic attainment. Most local authorities practice restorative justice to complement Children’s Hearing system. Policy context well aligned with restorative principles, including initiative Better Behaviour, Better Learning • Ethical: Recognition that restorative practice is fair and just e.g. approaches advocated | Unclear | Initiation of restorative practice through a government funded pilot scheme. Adaptation to local school needs depending on existing ethos and practice | Training and skill development of school, staff and students | Scottish government; local authorities; school staff and students. | Mixed responses from staff. Some evidence of uptake, but unclear acceptability of implementation processes. | |
Skinns et al. (2009) [21] Evaluation report | 6 schools; mixed gender comprehensives (700–1200 pupils) in South Bristol, UK | • Epidemiological: Local: South Bristol location chosen as schools here had the highest rates of exclusion across all schools in Wales and England. Schools described as “problematic” | Unclear | One school integrated approach into school policies and focused on all staff training. Other schools aimed to embed practice in small “pockets” | Training provided for staff | Community interest group, funders, school staff and students | Quality of restorative practice reported to be higher in schools that adopted a whole school approach compared to those that adopted “pockets” of practice. Mixed reception by staff to the model |
Wong et al. (2011) [22] Natural experiment | 4 secondary schools; equivalent academic attainment records in Hong Kong | • Epidemiological: Increase in bullying at school in Hong Kong • Ethical: Social preference not to criminalise bullying and aggression in Hong Kong | Unclear | Unclear | All staff trained in a whole school restorative approach | Unclear, but varied. In one school staff and students | One school adopted approach fully, 2 adopted approach partially and 1 did not adopt approach. Unclear how approach was experienced |
Establishment of a TDAR group
Co-production and confirmation of Programme theory with stakeholders
Inputs | Whole school restorative activities | Causal Mechanisms | Intermediate Outcomes | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Initiation funding Staff training in restorative approach Policy and systems alignment Benchmarking | Individual-level • Student-staff: Restorative conversations; Student needs-led approach to learning • Student –student: Peer mentoring • Staff-staff: Peer mentoring Group level • Classroom: Circle time; Rotational seating plans • Staff: Circle time structure for meetings and policy development Organisational level • Distributive leadership • Language of school reflects restorative principles • Student involvement in high stakes school level decisions, e.g. school development planning. Community level • Engagement with families • Engagement with local community | Intra-personal skill development – empathy, accountability Enhanced confidence, self-efficacy and sense of achievement in learning among students Enhanced confidence, self-efficacy and reduced stress among staff Trustworthy, supportive, respectful relationships between: • Student-staff • Student-student • Staff-staff Improved relationships between school and families Improved relationships between school and community | School connectedness for students and staff Student engagement in learning and pride in success Positive school culture (e.g. supportive, welcoming, trustworthy, safe and secure) Enhanced school reputation in community and student/staff pride in school | Primary outcome: improved student mental health and wellbeing Improved staff mental health and wellbeing. Increase in student attendance Reductions in student suspension & permanent exclusion. Reduction in staff absence Reduction in students’ referrals to youth justice Reduction in bullying and inappropriate behaviour Improved academic attainment School oversubscription |
Contextual characteristics that influence implementation and programme theory | ||||
School level | Re-enforce and promote cultural shift | Undermine or threaten cultural shift | ||
• On-going senior leadership support and investment • Monitoring and evaluation • Self-assessment and development e.g. inset day meetings • Revision of policy documents as active process | • Staff changes and challenge with continuity • Sub-culture of staff resistance and challenge with consistency | |||
Policy and political level | Contextual drivers that value restorative approach (e.g. the Donaldson review recommending curriculum reform in Wales) | Contextual factors that threaten the approach (e.g. school accountability measures that focus on student results at the exclusion of other metrics) |
Settinga | Contextb | Implementation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation Theoryc | Implementation Processd | Implementation Strategye | Implementation Agentsf | Implementation Outcomesg | ||
Mixed comprehensive, secondary school (1700 students) in Wales. Approx. one quarter of students live in England. Lower than the national average in terms of social deprivation Interactions Perception among external stakeholders that restorative practice can work in the school because relatively low social deprivation, with less antisocial behaviour. Also assumption of greater cohesion in family and community groups | Contextual features • International: OECD countries compare academic attainment of school students using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) • Regional: Wales score the lowest of UK countries on PISA rankings,. Strong policy focus to enhance academic attainment • Regional: Independent curriculum review in Wales. Recommended changes in approach to attainment and focus on promotion of health and wellbeing • Regional: New legislation in Wales “Well-being of Future Generations Act, 2015” sets legislative frame for public bodies to act in a sustainable way that promotes health and wellbeing. Interactions • Embedding of restorative practice as core part of pedagogy aligned with Welsh curriculum review and with new legislative context, but competing pressures regarding academic attainment and school regulatory body targets create opposing tensions and demand • Structures to sustain the intervention requires reflexive practice and adaptability | Diffusion of innovation, where restorative practice initially adoptedby the senior leadership. Recognition that staff and student groups would adopt the intervention at different times and in different ways (e.g. “early” vs. “late” adopters) Theory used to guide and frame experience of implementation over time. Senior leadership use diffusion of innovation terminology to explain process | Implementation process described as “organic”. Started with staff engagement. Moved to re-alignment of school policies and clarification of school values. Transitioned to establishing restorative practice in the form of routines that will sustain the intervention | Funding, training of school staff and students, focus on engagement of innovators and early adopters, use of form tutors to build staff-student class relationship, curriculum review, policy and systems alignment Strategy involves embedding organisational structures that sustain restorative practice (e.g. staff selection, expectation of staff training, the way in which staff meetings are conducted, classroom routines, how the student council is run, expectation of student involvement in high stakes decisions) | Government funding, multi-agency workers, governors, school staff, students and parents | Intervention is fully embedded in the school |
Causal mechanisms
Through a shift towards trustworthy and responsive relationships, the school was considered to offer a more positive and supportive culture. These changes led to students experiencing increased school connectedness. This process was further enhanced through a distributed leadership model, involving students in key decision making, such as the design of a new building or appointment of a staff member, with one commenting ‘we’ve had a huge impact with everything in school.’STAFF FG2; 14- … the starting with them … with them was to sort of have a circle time in and listen to them. Find out what they need from me and let them know what I need from them. Erm, and just … just not being afraid really to sort of break down any barriers between sort of thoughts and feelings …
Beyond intended causal pathways, participants considered unintended pathways, which have largely been overlooked in the previous modelling of restorative approaches. This identification illustrates the particular strength of co-production and learning from interventions already in routine practice. For example, participants indicated that the school’s improved reputation following adoption of the intervention had led to over-subscription, which had limited access in the community and placed a resource burden on the school.STUDENT FG1;5: Because when I first came to the school, … we were known as “down the hill” and now it’s “the comp”. Like things have changed. …
Outcomes
Additional outcomes are presented in Table 3.STUDENT FG1; 2- I think wellbeing in the school is kind’ve increased massively ..,I’ve got a brother who is 5 years older than me but he came to this school as well and he’s told me stories about how there used to be fights every week and people would set off fire extinguishers... then you look at our school now and honestly I’d be surprised if I heard about a fight because it just doesn’t happen anymore...(laughs) yeah it’s not common any more. I think generally school life has transformed and everything is more positive now. I rarely hear people talk badly about teachers um, everything here seems to be more positive and I think that contributes to all the points these guys have brought up about feeling secure and happy in the environment.
Contextual characteristics
Epidemiological
STAFF FG1; 2: … we were just finding we were going round and round and round in circles and not really making progress.
Political
Socio-economic
STAFF FG1; 6 – I think there’s more focus on students’ perspectives here um, which students value more. Generally the behaviour here is better than at schools that I’ve taught at previously, though I’d say those schools are working within a different concepts, there are inherently gonna be more issues because of the intake that they have.
Socio-cultural
Participants also suggested a potential mismatch between the social and emotional competencies required for the effective delivery of a restorative approach, and a socio-cultural context that does not always privilege vulnerability and emotional openness. To mitigate against such issues, participants identified the importance of senior leadership vision and commitment as part of the implementation plan to ensure realignment of the school ethos with the restorative practice approach and staff commitment to training and delivery. Moreover, the school adopted a rather organic diffusion process, initially securing training to a small team of pastoral staff to ensure their buy in and capacity for modelling the approach before expanding to more diverse professional roles. Eventually working groups were established to ensure continued change to the socio-cultural context, with a Behaviour Research Group reviewing how the restorative practices could be sensitively translated into the setting.STAFF FG1;2 – varied yeah, it is varied across the school: you can see a restorative conversation happening in quite a negative tone in one space, but in another it can be very effective so...and that’s hard for young people as well because young people say “I’ve just had a restorative” (said in an angry voice) and actually it’s like hang on a second, that’s not a restorative
Taken together, this phase provided a nuanced and contextually sensitive understanding of the local innovation. At this point it is important to consider the potential for different stakeholder groups to have different perspectives on the programme theory. In the present case example, there were no significant disagreements. However, it may arise and the processes for resolving potential conflict needs further consideration.STAFF FG2;13: We’re working with parents on the approach we would take in school particularly where children have reflected and said ‘well if I did that at home this is what would happe’n … or this is what I see at home. And that ongoing communication and collaboration with parents is really important and it’s quite a long journey for some.