This was written for my Restorative Practice paper so it has that slant
A description of Positive Behaviour for Learning School Wide
In society academic
underachievement and poor prosocial skills among our young people is (or should
be) a concern for everyone. As schools are developmental institutions
(Hopkins, 2007) they are the ideal places to grow our young people and increase
their life chances by working with them to create safe and peaceful learning
environments (Feinberg,
Handler, Putnam & Luiselli, 2005; Warren, Bohanon-Edmonson, Turnbull,
Sailor, Wickham, Griggs, & Beech, 2006).
In New Zealand the Taumata Whanonga behaviour summit was
held in 2009 to address concerns such as violence and bullying that were
creating unsafe learning environments in some schools and were stopping
teachers from teaching (Feinberg
et al., 2005; MoE, n.d.; Warren et al., 2006). The summit firstly acknowledged
that the traditional systems of laying down the rules and then using sanctions
to impose them (Hopkins, 2007) were not working and discussed other methods (MoE,
n.d.). Secondly, the Ministry of
Education introduced their action plan: Positive Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) which
focuses on both students’ behaviour and their learning simultaneously (ERO,
2011).
One of the current ten initiatives of PB4L is PB4L
School Wide (PB4LSW) which was initially developed in the United States as
Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) (MoE, n.d.). At the foundation of PBIS is social and
cognitive learning theory (Boyd, Dingle, Herdina, New Zealand Council
for Educational Research & New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2014). This states that people do not learn new behaviours solely by trying them and either
succeeding or failing; they need to observe the behaviour rewarded and then she
or he may replicate the behaviour model if they choose to (Bandura as cited in
Palmer, 2012). Using this theory individual
schools have to
reconstruct their discipline systems by defining, teaching and acknowledging (through
extrinsic rewards) school-wide expectations while having consistent
consequences for violations of the rules (Feuerborn, Tyre, & King, 2015).
PBIS was chosen by the NZ Government to assist our schools to “build a culture where positive
behaviour and learning is a way of life” by “changing the environment, systems
and practices” to support young people to make positive behaviour choices (MoE,
n.d.). At the same time it appeases
the current managerial climate where facts and figures are considered so vital
(Thrupp & Hursh, 2006) by collecting and
analysing data (Feinberg
et al., 2005). In NZ PBIS was rebranded into PB4LSW and from 2010 was offered to all (both
State and Integrated) Primary, Intermediate and Secondary Schools as a
framework, with financial support of $10,000 a year for 3 years, to build a contextually consistent and
positive school-wide learning environment (Boyd et al., 2014; Muscot,
Mann & Lebron, 2008). It is designed to
suit all schools whether they have perceived behaviour issues or not and even
complement those who already have Restorative Justice Practice (RJP) culture at
their heart by building systems for staff to follow (MoH, n.d.). However, PB4LSW is not mandatory in NZ’s
educational system and some schools may believe that they already have
effective behaviour plans in place (Boyd et al., 2014; Muscot
et al., 2008) or just don’t want to join.
If a school does decide to
participate they have to move through three separate tiers to ensure the customs and values of the new PB4LSW
culture foster success for all (MoE,
2012). For it to be implemented
effectively and sustained (McIntosh, MacKay, Hume, Doolittle, Vincent, Horner & Ervin 2011) there may need to be a substantial change (in some cases) of
teachers’ practices (Feuerborn et al., 2015) so there has to be an 80% staff commitment. Only then can the school begin the Tier 1
journey of targeting 80% of students by actively teaching positive behaviour
while reinforcing its expectations and using consistent consequences. Once this is in place schools can move into
Tier 2 where they develop targeted interventions for small groups of vulnerable
students and after this Tier 3, which develops specialised interventions for
individuals who need additional support (Boyd et al., 2014).
The 2014 Preliminary evaluation (Boyd et al., 2014)
indicated that PB4LSW is
improving school culture through an increase in consistent approaches to
behaviour. However, socio-economic status maybe an issue as it is faster to implement in deciles 5-8 than lower
decile schools (Boyd et al., 2014). This maybe to do with the “messy
details” associated with some students from lower decile schools (Thrupp &
Lupton, 2006) which can make the behaviour of a young person more complex and its
management by the school more challenging.
On
a positive note, in lower decile schools, there appears to be more consultative
approaches with staff, greater shifts in student outcomes and PB4LSW is usually
further embedded across the school (Boyd et al., 2014). In relation to the different sectors
(Primary, Intermediate and Secondary) Secondary/Intermediate coaches tended to
report more change to student behaviour and Primary coaches to school culture
and systems. Generally, the PB4LSW journey was more complex for Intermediate
and High schools, probably due to their size, and there was a wider gap between
existing practices and PB4LSW. They were
“less likely to work collaboratively with their community, have practices that
supported consistency, and data systems that enabled them to use data to make
changes to school systems or practices” and consequently need more support (Boyd et al., 2014,
p. 27).
Does implementing
PB4LSW in a school make it restorative by default?
Some people who either promote
PB4LSW or work in PB4LSW schools claim that PB4LSW automatically renders them a
RJP school (Personal communication, Wendy Drewery, May 25 2015). In this section I am going to discuss three of these
claims and after refute them.
Firstly, the aim of PB4LSW
is to improve behaviour management and school discipline and in some schools
this is also the reason RJP is introduced (Drewery & Kecskemeti, 2010) so arguably
to supporters they must be the same. The claim becomes stronger when the PB4LSW
school moves away from a punitive culture, especially when stand down rates decrease
(MoE, n.d.), which is at the opposite end of the spectrum to a RJP culture (Wachtel, 1999, as cited in
Vaandering, 2010).
Secondly, although PB4LSW does
not claim to be restorative as it is not specifically “a philosophy, in action,
that places relationships at the heart of the educational experience” (MoE,
2012) they do have similar objectives as both want the creation of a more
respectful and inclusive school culture (Boyd et al., 2014). PB4LSW achieves it by constructing a preventative
model of wellbeing (Noble & McGrath, 2008) which rewards positive conduct (Bandura, 1986 as cited in Palmer, 2012) and teaches the desired behaviours. Some would say that this inevitably fashions
a culture which is respectful,
inclusive (Boyd et al., 2014) and full
of healthy and caring relationships (Cavanagh,
2009) which are also found at the “heart of a successful and happy” RJP school (Hopkins, 2007, p.28).
Finally, PB4LSW doesn’t
use the word “justice” specifically but it would contend that it does promote fairness
which is associated with the term justice (Vaandering, 2010) through its insistence on
consistency. Enthusiasts may also infer
that they are liberating
people from poverty which is Zehr’s (1990, as cited in Hopkins, 2007) definition
of justice as they are increasing life chances for students by fostering
success for all. Therefore PB4LSW must be RJP and vice versa.
However, when these arguments are
examined closely RJP and PB4LSW are not identical. Yes, they have similarities but this doesn’t
make them fundamentally the same. People shouldn’t believe that just because
the end result may be similar (i.e. respectful school culture) that their
journeys are indistinguishable nor use logical fallacy, for example, PB4LSW is
not punitive therefore it must be restorative.
To refute this further, I have identified three distinct differences
between the two. One, in PB4LSW there is an emphasis on personal
responsibility (Llewellyn, 2012; Richmond, 2009) while in RJP collective
responsibility, including the support and needs of the family and community, is
considered just as important (Drewery, 2013; Vaandering, 2010). Two, PB4LSW does not have to give students opportunities to
be listened to or change
their identity to a preferred and emerging one (McMenamin,
2014) as in RJP
schools. And three, PB4LSW schools could choose the deficit
model if students do not follow the expected rules and resort to blame and punishment (Cavanagh, 2009; Hopkins, 2007) unlike RJP schools.
The limitations of PB4LSW
In the first instance there is a limitation to PB4LSW because
people do not always follow through with what they agree to on paper. Unfortunately,
some teachers who assent to being on board may choose not follow the new procedures
and/or continue to rely on admin to deal with students’ behaviour (Cavanagh, Boyd, Ridley, Anthony, Walshaw, Hunter & Rutherford,
2007). Agreement on being consistent is also a
tricky concept as it is difficult for an individual teacher to be consistent in
a single lesson let alone across a whole staff (Richmond, 2009). Therefore, for consistency to be relevant it
has to reside in its intent of being fair.
Even this is problematic as some teachers view fairness through a “Law
and Order” lens where they believe that all young people should be treated the
same way and if they act out of the prescribed behaviour they get what they
deserve. While others perceive fairness
through a “Social Justice” lens where students should be treated differently so
everyone can consistently acquire access to what they need to be effective
learners (Richmond, 2009).
A number of schools argue that there is true collaboration during
the implementation of PB4LSW as the values are chosen and developed by the
students (and staff) which increases their ownership in the behaviours that the
school considers significant (Boyd et al., 2014). However, it could be argued that this is PB4LSW’s
second constraint as almost certainly there was not collaboration with all
students, more than likely just some from Tier 1 nor with the whole school
community (Boyd et al., 2014). Furthermore,
according to the
School Discipline Window (Wachtel, 1999, as cited in Vaandering, 2010) PB4LSW fits
in the “done to” quadrant as it is not concerned with the equality of relationships
(Llewellyn, 2012) as the teachers may have somewhat of a
choice to be part of it but the rest of the community doesn’t (Wachtel, 1999,
as cited in Vaandering, 2010).
A third drawback is in relation to our Priority
Learners. Although during the PB4LSW evaluation
the majority of schools answered that it “worked well” as there was a focus on Māori,
Pasifika and Special Educational Needs students, there was nevertheless more
disagreement about these practices compared to any others (Boyd et al., 2014). The schools suggested that PB4LSW should
incorporate Te Kotahitanga strategies and/or other models and research (Boyd et
al., 2014) to make it more culturally responsive. Perhaps the Ministry of Education should have
taken NZ’s unique context into account from the beginning rather than
preferring an overseas evidence based framework? (Education Review, August 2013)
The final limitation is around the actual
implementation. Yes, PB4LSW is concerned
with transforming culture by dealing with behaviour differently but teachers are
not being instructed in enough detail about how to do this. It cannot be significant or worthwhile if
teachers don’t alter their “beliefs and conceptions of practice” (Smylie,
1995, as cited in Gay, 2010, p. 95). After
this they have to be taught how to use respectful and
positive language to help young people build their self-perception as capable
individuals and responsible community members (Wood & Freeman-Loftis, 2012). By building
respectful relationships with students who may only learn from people they respect
and like (Bishop & Berryman, 2006; Pierson) teachers
should be able to deescalate incidents in their own classrooms and not
always rely on Senior Leaders or outside experts to resolve them (Cavanagh et
al., 2007).
Conclusion
In today’s climate school leaders have to find
creative ways to reconcile social justice aspirations with
market imperatives (Stevenson, 2007) and to a degree PB4LSW does just this. There is some tangible evidence to show that in
PB4LSW schools behaviour
improves and retention rates and NCEA Level 1 passes increase (Boyd et al.,
2014) where there is no such data for RJP (Drewery, 2014). Therefore, PB4LSW is improving the life
chances of our young people which is a definite social justice and RJP
aspiration (Zehr, 1990, as cited in Hopkins, 2007). Nevertheless, I do not believe that by itself
PB4LSW can truly make changes in the behaviour of all of our students. My suggestion is that schools actively custom
the core values of RJP, by making it the philosophical
foundation of relationships and the way to respond to wrongdoing and conflict
(Cavanagh, et al., 2007) while using the facts, figures and processes of
PB4LSW required by the current Government’s improvement agenda (Day, 2005). This will proactively establish a school
culture which is conducive to learning (Warren, et al., 2006) and supports not
disempower teachers (Riddell, McCluskey, Lloyd, Kane, Stead &
Weedon, 2011) to ensure that all students are educated in respectful, safe,
peaceful and inclusive communities where they are valued and their cultures and
perspectives are accepted (Feinberg et al., 2005; Warren, et al., 2006).
References
Bishop,
R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture
speaks: Cultural relationships and classroom learning.
Wellington, N.Z: Huia
Boyd, S.,
Dingle, R., Herdina, N., New Zealand Council for Educational Research, &
New Zealand. Ministry of Education (2014).
PB4L school-wide evaluation: Preliminary findings : Report to the ministry of
education. Wellington: Ministry of Education
Cavanagh, T. (2009).
Creating schools of peace and nonviolence in a time of war and violence. Journal
of school violence, 8(1),
64-80. doi:10.1080/15388220802067912
Cavanagh, T., Boyd,
S., Ridley, K., Anthony, G., Walshaw, M., Hunter, P., & Rutherford, J. (2007). Focusing on relationships creates
safety in schools. Set:
Research Information for Teachers, 1, 31-35.
Day, S. (2005).
Sustaining success in challenging contexts: leadership in English schools. Journal
of Educational Administration, 43(6),
573- 583.
Drewery,
W. (2013). Restorative approaches in New Zealand schools: A developmental approach. In Sellman, E., Cremin, H. &
McCluskey, G. (Eds.) Restorative Approaches to Conflict in Schools:
Inter-disciplinary perspectives on managing relationships
in the classroom, (pp. 40-50). London, UK: Routledge
Drewery,
W. (2014, June 2). Reflecting on Issues in RP [Panopto]. Retrieved from http://coursecast.its.waikato.ac.nz/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=51ab01ab-2e7a- 4c30-a87e-078f93a38f48
Drewery, W., & Kecskemeti,
M. (2010). Restorative Practices and Behaviour Management in Schools: Discipline Meets Care. Waikato
Journal of Education, 15(3), 110-113
Education
Review (August, 2013). PB4L what’s the fuss about? Retrieved from http://www.educationreview.co.nz/magazine/july-2013/pb4l-whats- the-fuss- about/#.VWZcc8-qrp4
ERO
(2011). Positive foundations for learning: Confident and competent children in
early childhood services. Retrieved from http://www.ero.govt.nz/National- Reports/Positive-Foundations-for-Learning-Confident-and-Competent-Children-in- Early-Childhood-Services-October-2011/Introduction
Feuerborn,
L. L., Tyre, A. D., & King, J. P. (2015). The staff perceptions of behavior
and discipline survey: A tool to help
achieve systemic change through schoolwide positive
behavior support. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 17(2), 116-126. doi:10.1177/1098300714556675
Feinberg,
A. B., Handler, M. W., Putnam, R. F., & Luiselli, J. K. (2005).
Whole-school positive behaviour support:
Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational
Psychology, 25(2), 183-198. doi:10.1080/0144341042000301265
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher
education for cultural diversity. Journal
of Teacher Education. 61(1-2)
p.143-152. DOI:
10.1177/0022487109347320.
Hopkins,
B. (2007). Restorative approaches in UK schools. International
Journal of Restorative Justice, 2(3).
Llewellyn, J.J. (2012). Restorative Justice: Thinking relationally about justice. In J. Downie
& J.J. Llewellyn (Eds). Being
relational: Reflections on relational theory and health law, (pp.89-108).
Toronto: UBC Press.
McMenamin, D. (2014). Supporting reputation and
behavior change at school through exploring
and retelling preferred identity stories. Journal
of Systemic Therapies, 33(3), 69-86.
McIntosh, K., MacKay, L. D., Hume, A. E., Doolittle, J., Vincent, C. G.,
Horner, R. H., & Ervin, R. A.
(2011). Development and initial validation of a measure to assess factors related to sustainability of school-wide
positive behavior support. Journal of
Positive Behavior
Interventions, 13(4), 208-218. doi:10.1177/1098300710385348
MoE
(2012). Restorative practices in NZ: The seven restorative practices. NZ: Ministry of Education.
MoH (n.d.). PB4L
schoolwide in secondary schools.
Retrieved from http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/mental-health-and-addictions/youth-mental- health- project/youth-mental-health-project-initiatives/pb4l-school-wide-secondary- schools
Noble, T., & McGrath, H. (2008). The positive
educational practices framework: A tool for facilitating
the work of educational psychologists in promoting pupil wellbeing. Educational
and Child Psychology, 25(2),
119-134.
Palmer, S. (2012). Multimodal coaching and its
application to workplace, life and health coaching. Coaching Psykologi-The Danish
Journal of Coaching Psychology, 2(1),
91- 98.
Richmond, C.
(2009). Behaviour Management: A Minimalist Approach. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation/OurWorkProgra mme/PositiveBehaviourForLearning/TaumataWhanonga/Presentations.aspx
Riddell,
S., McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2011).
'Teachers are afraid we are
stealing their strength': A risk society and restorative approaches in school. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 105-119. doi:10.1080/00071005.2011.565741
Stevenson,
H.P. (2007). A case study in leading
schools for social justice: When morals and markets
collide. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 769-781. doi: 10.1108/09578230710829937
Stoll, L., & Temperley, J.
(2009). Creative leadership: a challenge of our times. School Leadership and Management, 29(1), 65-78.
Thrupp, M. & Lupton, R. (2006).
Taking school contexts more seriously: The social justice challenge. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 308-328.
Thrupp, M. & Hursh, D. (2006).
The limits of managerialist school reform: the case of target- setting in England and the USA. Chapter in Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough
J. and Halsey A. H. (eds)
(2006) Education, Globalization and
Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Vaandering,
D. (2010). The significance of critical theory for restorative justice in
education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 2(32),
145-176, http://dx.doi.org/:10.1080/10714411003799165
Warren,
J. S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Wickham, D.,
Griggs, P., & Beech, S. E.
(2006). School-wide positive behavior support: Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2),
187. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9008-1
Williams,
M., & Winslade, J. (2008). Using “Undercover teams” to re-story bullying relationships. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 27(1), 1-15. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2008.27.1.1
Wood,
C., & Freeman-Loftis, B. (2012). Want positive behavior? Use positive
language. Education Digest, 78(2), 31.
