SCHOOLS & SOLUTIONS
  • Home
  • About S&S
    • What is RP?
    • Goals
    • Impact
    • Events >
      • Articles
  • Results
  • Partners
  • Contact

Schools and Solutions activities

Restorative Practices training in schools: implementation lessons from two Erasmus + projects and other countries.

4/20/2022

0 Comments

 
​
  • Commissioning and delivering restorative and relational processes training are fairly straightforward, but this is not the whole picture.
  • Do trainers always understand or appreciate the cultural differences between schools, other types of organisations, or when appropriate, different countries?
  • It is the ‘what happens after the training’ that is important and this can be the difference between the implementation process being a success, or failure.

Introduction

In 2017 IIRP Europe(now defunct) and SynRJ were pleased and excited to be approached to join the RESTORE PROJECT, an Erasmus+ funded programme that aimed to “develop safer and more positive school climate through restorative practices”. There were six partner organisations from 6 countries;
Ligand (Coordinator) (Belgium)
International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) Europe (UK – No longer operating)
Le Souffle (Belgium) 
Mairie de Lille (France)
CRESM – (Italy)
ASOCIATIA DE DEZVOLTARE INTERCOMUNITARA ZONA METROPOLITANA – CLUJ (Romania)
Eigen Kracht Centrale (Netherlands)
The aim of this project was to create an implementation plan for Restorative Practice (RP) training that could be used by any organisation, anywhere in Europe. An idea that quickly proved to be both complex and difficult.
The Partners in the RESTORE PROJECT brought with them very different levels of RP knowledge and experience. In order to achieve a level of consistency the group provided training for everyone following a structured model approach, using a combination of training materials developed by the IIRP Europe and SynRJ. For research purposes this ensured consistency of material and training, as the different Partners introduced the concepts in their own countries.
The ‘RESTORE’ Partners produced a number of ‘tools’ aimed at helping organisations along their restorative journey, starting with the initial contact, through to aspects of ‘restorative leadership’. However, there are two aspects of the implementation process that we would like to focus upon, the first, born out of circumstances and necessity – ‘Student Workbooks’, and the second, ‘Professional Learning Groups’. These ‘tools’ enabled us to continually support the schools that we were working with. This article reflects our journey as one partner working in the UK to develop training that could be used inclusively in any country.

The training

​The courses and workshops that we delivered helped the organisations and individuals address negative behaviour, though our emphasis was on the concept of Restorative Practice (RP) as an opportunity to create an organisational climate which promotes positive relationships and is therefore proactive e.g. the use of Circles, reducing the chances of the negative behaviour occurring in the first place.
Our structured model focusses on providing a practical range of skills that can be used by everybody (including pupils) throughout the day and can be applied to the frequent small but nagging issues to the less frequent serious incidents.
Picture

Post Training: will the organisation ‘fly’ with RP or will it ‘sink without trace’?
​

​At the end of a day’s training, loading the car is always accompanied by positive emotions. The day has gone well and the group has worked together in a constructive way as they successfully moved through the various sessions.
During the journey home we tend to ponder upon what will happen next within the commissioning organisation(s). Will Restorative Practices ‘fly’ or will it ‘sink without trace’? These are the two extreme outcomes and for most organisations, the future is usually somewhere between the two. The underlying theory is not difficult to understand and indeed, we have delivered a version of our One Day Introduction to RP to school children as young as 6 years old, so the real question is around applying the theory to their practice.
When we created SynRJ in 2016 we recognised that applying the theory to their practice was a major issue for many organisations and it was something that we wanted to help address. The organisations that ‘fly’ (the ones that fully integrate the new ideas into what they already do), are often characterised by having people who can identify the bridges between theory and practice and have the will and drive to move in the desired direction. Unfortunately, all too often, many others enjoy the training and leave the session enthused, without fully recognising the scope and opportunities for its practical application. For this group, the everyday demands of their work slowly but surely consume both their enthusiasm and will to make the necessary changes.

Time to focus on implementation.
​

It is against this backdrop that we now want to highlight two opportunities that arose - both via the Erasmus+ route: the use of student workbooks and Professional Learning Groups (PLGs)
Student Workbooks.
Two schools from Bury (the north west of England) had agreed to work with us as part of the RESTORE PROJECT. One was a Secondary School (11 to 16 year-olds) and the other, a Primary School (3 to 11 year-olds). One of our key areas of focus was upon the ‘transition process’, looking at what each school had in place, or did together, to help the pupils as they move from the Primary to Secondary setting.
The early meetings with both schools went well. Time and space were made available for us to provide the necessary training, and where possible, the separate school staff groups came together for these sessions. As is often the case, the Primary School found it easier to interweave the ideas and restorative approaches with their way of working, though the Secondary School was also making similar significant changes too.
Unfortunately, towards the end of the first year of our involvement, there was an extremely serious incident involving pupils from the Secondary School, which not only impacted upon the school, but also had serious implications for the local community. As a result of this incident the focus of the school had to temporarily change and the ongoing work that we had planned was understandably put on hold. This difficult period slipped into the long summer break (July and August) and our contact with the Secondary School was significantly less than our time with the Primary School. As a consequence, they were no longer moving at the same pace and we were having real doubts around the viability of continuing with the Secondary School. Following discussions with the School Leaders it was decided that we should continue, but that we needed to find a way of re-launching the RP initiative and at the same time, providing a ‘booster’ for both the staff and pupils.
At that point, the training provided had been for the staff groups and due to several delays at the start of the project, training for pupils was still some way off. Even then, it was envisaged that the pupil training would be for relatively small numbers. Our long experience of working with schools has repeatedly shown that working with pupils and engaging pupils in the process can be a key component of the implementation process.
We therefore saw the need to train all of the pupils, delivering the same concepts, using similar materials provided to staff and it needed to be completed in a very short period of time. An admirable goal but could it be achieved? Out of this need an idea was born that fully addressed this need.

We used ‘2 twilight sessions’ (after school time), to introduce the SynRJ ‘Student Workbooks’ and ‘Teachers Guides’ to the staff, to show them how to present the material and to prepare them to engage the pupils in the process. The additional benefit of this process, is the fact that the materials lend themselves to be delivered in various formats. These range from merely facilitating group or circle discussion, using a story board style, through to the pupil working through the workbook independently. Thus creating an inclusive approach, particularly important for those pupils who would otherwise struggle to engage.

At the same time the process also reacquainted the staff with the key RP concepts and materials. Following on from these sessions with staff, the school then created the time and opportunity for staff to work through the workbooks with their pupils. The general feedback was that this intervention had been well received by all pupils and it had succeeded in making up for the time lost.

The Primary School also followed the same process with the appropriate age-related workbooks and they too reported the whole process as being a success. Both staff groups recognised that the implementation plan could be flexible to respond to changing circumstances, as long as the end goal is not lost.

Professional Learning Groups (PLGs)
Professional Learning Groups (PLG) – became the missing link between theory and practice.
When reflecting upon the many training sessions that we have delivered over the years, we cannot recall a single example of when an attendee could not understand the training or the theory. As tempting as it may be to cite the brilliance of the trainers, the reality is that the underlying theory and principles are both straightforward and easy to comprehend. The course feedback supports this notion and many attendees also add that the sessions are fun and practical. So, if all of this is true, why do so many organisations struggle or fail to integrate the training into their everyday practice?

We would suggest that there is not a simple, single answer to this question but ‘time and guidance’ probably encompasses the myriad of factors that come into play.
There are many models used to explain how PLG’s (sometimes also referred to as Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s)) work and how they can be used. However, for the RESTORE Project we wanted to create a process that could be systematically followed by any of the Partners (or others), one that focused on practice (both current and desired), and continually linked theory with practice.

One of the main components of the RESTORE Project PLG model is identifying a staff group who will be instrumental in overseeing aspects of the implementation plan, who can provide ‘challenge’ when necessary and who will engage in regular ongoing sessions with the RP trainer/ consultant.
​
Our focus is on linking theory and practice, so how does it work? The basic steps are as follows;
1 . Assess current practice and plot it on the  ‘Social Discipline Window’ (IIRP).or ‘Relationship Styles Template’ (SynRJ), as illustrated below. This can quickly highlight what practice is identifiable as being ‘restorative and relational’ (working in the WITH’ box), and that which is not.
Picture
Picture
2. Having identified area of practice that are considered not to be ‘fully restorative’, consider the specific area of practice in greater detail using the key restorative elements;
  • Relational Styles Template (based on McCold, & Wachtel, 2003)
  • Fair Process (Kim Chan, & Mauborgne,2003)
  • Relational Questions (O’Connell, 2015)
  • Free Expression of all Emotions (Nathanson, 1992)
  • Braithwaite’s Hypothesis (Braithwaite, 1989)
 
The PLG then looks at what is working well, what needs to be changed, and also suggests as to how the practice can be changed where needed. Important aspects of this include being clear who is responsible, what is the timescale and what resources are required.
​
3. Re-assess changed practice using the same methodology.
This process can be used to consider ‘practice’ in any area of the organisation and this reinforces the belief that RP is not just something we use with young people or the client group.

The impact of training and how can we do better?
​

​As this project came to a close in 2020, we were invited work with a new Erasmus + project called Schools&Solutions. As the name suggests, the practical application of RP was one of the main goals of this project.

When the Schools&Solutions Project was still in its early stages, the school that we were to work with welcomed the opportunity to examine the problems that they faced, and to consider the ways in which they currently respond. Some of the staff had previously received RP training and in the first instance, it was interesting to see how much of their current practice reflected this input. Initially the schools identified the various problems that occurred within their schools and at the interface with the local community. The next step was to look at how they currently responded and judge how ‘restorative’ that response was. After this had been assessed the project then helped the schools work out if the processes could be made ‘more restorative’. A further interesting aspect of this project was that where appropriate, the schools were encouraged to look beyond the school gates and look at how the wider community may be involved in helping to address and resolve incidents/problems.

We were able to take into this project lessons learnt from the RESTORE project. Partners initially assumed that once the key components of the implementation plan had been formulated and agreed, the work with their respective schools would be straightforward. With hindsight, it was probably the case that each individual partner was considering their own circumstances and assuming that everyone else was working within the same parameters.

So, one of the first tasks was to identify the main problems and issues experienced by each school and have them think about how they currently address these issues. It was interesting to see that many problems were common across all schools – the most common being ‘bullying’ -though methods used to address incidents was very varied.
The second phase was about creating a model that could have widespread application, one that could be applied to all organisations, most if not all of their identified behaviours, and would result in a high level of consistency, both in terms of application and outcome.

Learning from, and building upon prior experiences, is extremely important.  In this respect there are two ‘stand out’ points to consider. The first is to consider the differences between ‘Restorative Justice’ (RJ) and ‘Restorative Practice’(RP). This was covered extensively in the training provided as part of phase 2.  In essence the former enables the organisation to address issues once they have occurred, and the latter also covers this, but goes further, by assisting the organisation in creating a culture / ethos in which the incidents are less likely to occur in the first place.  

By pursuing the RP route, it is expected that non-incident specific issues identified in the first phase, such as ‘not continuing in education’, may also be reduced. When creating the model for this project great emphasis has been placed on developing relationships, both within the school and between the school and the community in which they operate. A significant portion of training time has been devoted to the various use of ‘CIRCLES’ as this aspect is considered to be a highly effective way of developing and building relationships between the various parties.

The second ‘stand out’ factor is around pupil engagement and involvement. There are various models around how this might be achieved from awareness raising training for all pupils, to more intense training for smaller groups of pupils who will have a specific role in terms of applying the processes when addressing issues with other pupils. All approaches have merit and the favoured route is to provide RP training for all pupils, the content of which closely resembles the one-day training provided to all staff. As the staff who have experienced the one-day training are not qualified to train, they will require additional support and direction. This can best be provided by the use of Teachers Guides and Student Workbooks, which the staff can work through with the pupils.

Using the structure of student workbooks ensures that all materials are covered and is more likely to achieve a higher level of consistency and understanding for all concerned.

Experiences from other countries:
Implementing a new idea or new approach can be exciting, exhilarating and challenging. Organisations generally report that take up is usually very positive but also that it is important to maintain the momentum, particularly when challenging issues arise, which they inevitably will. Sometimes implementation is at a single school level, for others it is at a municipality (area /regional) level. Either way, what is required is support. Finding dedicated times and opportunities to discuss issues and celebrate successes is vital. Creating an internal group of staff who are responsible for driving the implementation process is useful (RPG’s*).
​
* ‘Restorative Planning Group’ (RPG), which is a very practical and RP focused version of the ‘Professional Learning Group’ (PLG), as mentioned earlier.

Experience shows that RP implementation, like all new projects or programmes, does inevitably raise issues and problems however, the cultural and systemic differences between countries brings an added dimension. If RP is thought of as a ‘different way of thinking’, and if the Key Elements are adhered to, it is surprising just how often the underpinning theory provides the solution to the emerging issues.

References

Braithwaite, J., (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press.
Kim, W. Chan, & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review,81(1), pp.127-136. Available from: https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy
McCold, P. and Wachtel, T. (2003). In pursuit of paradigm: a theory of restorative justice. Restorative Practices E-Forum, available from: http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf
Nathanson, D.L. (1992). Shame and pride: affect, sex, and the birth of the self. New York, Norton.
O’Connell, T. (2015). Why the Real Justice Script? International Institute for Restorative Practices 18th World Conference, June 10-12 2015, Budapest, Hungary. Available from https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/budapest2015-slides-oconnell.pdf
 Authors: 
​John Boulton and Les Davey
Co-directors of SynRJ
Picture
John Boulton was the principal of a residential special school for EBSD (Emotional, Behavioural and Social Difficulties) pupils, in Oxfordshire, England.
Picture
​Les Davey was a founder member of Thames Valley Police, Restorative Justice Consultancy, he was responsible for the development and roll out of their RJ training from 1996 until 2000
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

​This website has been accomplished during the project "Schools&Solutions​ - Upscaling school restorative approaches to foster school climate and improve students' competences on managing conflicts", Grant Agreement no. 2020-1-RO01-KA201-080411, implemented with financial support of the European Commission by the Erasmus+ Programme.  ​This publication reflects the views only of the author,  therefore the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. ​
Picture
  • Home
  • About S&S
    • What is RP?
    • Goals
    • Impact
    • Events >
      • Articles
  • Results
  • Partners
  • Contact