Evaluation of Checkpoints For Schools in Birmingham (2002-2003)
Objectives
This study aims to support the development of a safe environment for learning and teaching in a group of schools in Birmingham. The research builds on a range of small-scale pilot case studies across the country where Towards A Non-Violent Society: Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) has been used as an intervention strategy. The focus of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Checkpoints in supporting children, young people and schools in promoting non-violence.
Design
Two group pre-test, post-test design. Study schools received the intervention Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) and Checkpoints For Young People (Varnava, 2002); control schools received the intervention after post-test measures were administered.
Setting
Twelve Birmingham schools; seven primary, four secondary and one special school.
Participants
Year 6 and Year 7 children and young people in 7 study schools (n = 560) and 5 control schools (n = 674).
Main outcome measures
Pre- and post-test baseline measures were selected on the basis of considering the impact of the intervention on tangible aggressive behaviour and internal emotional well being. The recognised measures of the My Life in School Checklist (Arora, 1987) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1999) were selected to consider elements of behaviour such as bullying and overtly aggressive behaviour and internal emotional well-being of pupils, respectively. Study schools were invited to implement and use Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) in an unspecified way in accordance with their current view of bullying and violence in their school. In depth case study data was collected from the 7 study schools including documentary evidence, semi-structured interviews, diaries, observations and questionnaires with headteachers, middle managers and children.
Results
The quantitative results suggest that Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) is successfully addressing overt behaviours such as hitting, tripping or shouting, but is less successful in influencing emotions and internal processes such as feeling unhappy. The qualitative data also suggests that Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) acts as a springboard for action on practical issues such as self-auditing, raising and increasing self-awareness. Analysis of the case study data suggests three models that illustrate the process of a school's readiness to implement the intervention: the Circular Model, the Corkscrew Model and the String Model.
Conclusions
The case study analyses highlight the strengths and limitations of implementing the intervention Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) and its impact on behaviour in school. Describing the process of implementing the intervention it has been possible to suggest a model of readiness and emphasize the key factors that enhance or impede success. Further systematic evaluation of Checkpoints For Schools (Varnava, 2000) and Checkpoints For Young People (Varnava, 2002) is necessary to consider its effectiveness in the long term.
Download a copy of the Executive Summary (PDF - 171kB)
Related Links
For further details please contact:
Dr Julie Shaughnessy
PGCE Primary Programme Convener
School of Initial Teacher Education
University of Surrey Roehampton
Froebel College
Roehampton Lane
London SW15 5PJ
Tel: 020 8392 3493
Fax: 020 8392 3238
