The following paper was presented at the Rural Education Congress in Saskatoon on April 3, 2003, by a team of researchers from the McDowell Foundation. The team consisted of Yves Bousquet, Verna Gallén, Jackie Tennent, and Bev Walker.

Introduction to McDowell Research

The Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching is a charitable organization that funds research into teaching and learning in publicly funded K-12 schools. Each spring it selects projects for funding from applications submitted by teachers and others in response to a general call for research proposals. Most projects involve action research by practising teachers who are attempting to solve a problem or enhance student learning within their classrooms or schools. Their research is voluntary and designed to meet real educational needs in the context of specific schools and communities. Many McDowell researchers would argue that the understanding they gain from their own action research and the action research of colleagues is particularly valuable because it is grounded in the practicalities of teaching and learning in a specific time and place.
Since 1994, the Foundation has funded 13 research projects in Saskatchewan that relate to the development of safe, caring schools. Since this represents a significant proportion of all the projects funded to date (approximately 14%), concern for the safety and well-being of students emerges as a strong theme in the school-based action research being generated and carried out by Saskatchewan teachers. Through their McDowell projects, teachers have experimented with a wide range of ways for schools to address this concern, with varying degrees of success. Most projects have emphasized the need for change, not only in the misbehaving student, but also in the culture of the school itself in order to produce conditions that foster positive behaviour and discourage negative behaviour.

McDowell Research Related to the Creation of Safe, Caring Schools
1994-2002

Each McDowell project results in a report, handbook, or other document that is published by the Foundation and made available to anyone interested in the improvement of education. The results of most of the projects described below may be downloaded as PDF documents from the Foundation's web site at www.mcdowellfoundation.ca, or hard copies may be requested from the Foundation. The projects are presented here in chronological order, with the most recent projects first.

1. Creating a Culturally Affirming Learning Community. (In Progress). Yves Bousquet and the staff of Princess Alexandra Community School, Saskatoon. Project # 76.

A community school that serves a predominantly Aboriginal population is attempting to mesh the principles and practices of Restitution and Control Theory with traditional Aboriginal values and beliefs. Initial results indicate that the way the school has arrived at its approach to student behaviour is as important as the approach itself. The principal has introduced measures for empowering all members of the school community - students, families, teachers, teacher assistants, and non-teaching staff - as well as developing and implementing school-wide beliefs and practices with respect to student behaviour.

2. The Effects of Social Skills Groups During and After Periods of Regular Group Meetings. (In Progress). Bev Brenna and Gail Sajtos, Roland Michener School, Saskatoon. Project #93.

An elementary school is experimenting with the provision of social skills training three half-days each week to a group of students who have each been nominated for inclusion in the session by their teachers. The training is delivered by an in-school counsellor, who also offers training in positive parenting to interested parents. The researchers will be gathering data that indicates the impact of these training sessions on student behaviour in the classroom. If the impact is significantly positive, they hope school divisions will consider providing in-school services for students with social and emotional difficulties at the same level as services for students with academic difficulties.

3. Creating a Safe Place: One School's Experience. (2002). Lynda Tysowski, Jackie Semchuk and the staff of Queen Elizabeth School, Saskatoon. Project #54.

When an elementary school staff identified issues related to discipline, student conduct, and school climate as major concerns, staff committees were set up to tackle these issues. One committee focussed on the development and implementation of school policies and protocols designed to make the school a safe, caring and positive learning environment for students. Another committee spearheaded the development and implementation at all grade levels of an educational program to prevent bullying. Data were collected through student surveys and teacher reflections to determine whether these initiatives had a significant, positive impact on school culture. Some decrease in the incidence of bullying was perceived by students, especially in the lower grades. Teachers were less sure that the level of bullying had declined, but many had noticed a difference in the way students talked about and reacted to bullying. The researchers concluded that making a significant change in student behaviour would require a sustained effort over more than one year.

4. A New Path: Helping Regular Classrooms Support Lasting Change in Students with Behavioural Challenges. (2002). Tami Moffatt, Integrated Structured Learning Program, Regina. Project #75.

The teacher in an Integrated Structured Learning classroom explored the reasons that so many students who were successful in the I-SLC became violent and aggressive again when they returned to a regular classroom in their home schools. She concluded that regular classrooms and structured learning classrooms offer very different environments and there are inadequate bridges between the two to assist students in making the transition. In a survey of the schools served by her I-SLC program, she identified some of the problems teachers and school-based administrators encounter in supporting the progress made by students in the structured learning environment. The top three problems were time, community issues, and lack of board support.

5. In-School Suspension: Is It Working? (2001). Roza Gray and Michele Smith, A. E. Peacock Collegiate, Moose Jaw. Project #36.

For three years, the teachers involved in one high school's in-school suspension program collected and studied data on the students who received in-school suspensions. They reached two conclusions: 1) the program met its primary objectives to keep students in school and hold them accountable for their behaviour; and 2) the program did not meet its secondary objectives to change student behaviour and lead to a reduction in the number of suspensions. The teachers were disappointed to find that the same students received in-school suspensions over and over, even though the program included activities carefully designed to help students understand the reasons for their actions and develop plans to control their behaviour. The researchers concluded that lasting personal change for the core group of at-risk students who repeatedly break school rules requires more than reflection and planning on the part of the students. Such students have to be affected on an emotional level as well as a cognitive level to respond to interventions. Also, the program was hampered by a lack of acceptance, cooperation and support for its secondary objectives by some members of the school staff.

6. Teaching Affective Skills in Isolation Using the "Quality Intelligence Connection" Program. (2000). Roberta Amos, with Darlana Bailey, Elaine Beres, Michael Gatin, Charlene Hickie, Susan Muir, Bev Podborochynski, and Paul Watson, Osborne School, Prince Albert. Project #23.

In an elementary school serving a mixed population of long-established farm families, more recent acreage owners and transient trailer court dwellers, too much time was being spent on reactive discipline. Teachers in Grades 5-6 began to implement a "Quality Intelligence Connection" program that included the teaching of affective skills along with Glasser's Control Theory and Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory. Affective skills were taught for 40 minutes each day in a special class and then integrated into the curriculum for the rest of the school day. School records showed that the number of incidents of student misbehaviour dropped dramatically. Also, data collected from teacher interviews and parent and student questionnaires indicated that most students were perceived to have developed greater self-knowledge and self-esteem. However, a much smaller proportion appeared to be generalizing their newly learned affective skills and using them in real life situations. The study recommended that affective skills teaching be continued for at least five years and that ways be found to include parents more effectively in the school's effort to improve student behaviour.

7. The Adaptive Dimension: The Road Not Taken. (2001). Cathy Mills, Eldon Danielson, Sherry Doderai, Linda Hryciw, Terry Jelinski, Sharon Mitchell, Ken Morrison, Melanie Suchorab, Janet Ruder, Pam Rybinski, Bev Walker, and Denise Wilkinson, Birch Hills School. Project #39.

A research team was formed in a K-12 school to look at ways of utilizing the adaptive dimension of the provincial curriculum. Realizing that students were best able to adapt curriculum to ensure their own success, the teachers experimented with a tool kit of ideas and skills that students could use to enhance their own learning. They identified 14 tools that would benefit students, including Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. They also experimented with ways that students could be given real choices about their learning while still meeting criteria that were set by the teacher. Feedback gathered from students, parents, and teachers indicated that students were accepting more responsibility for their learning and producing high quality work. There were also fewer "turned off" students, fewer discipline incidents, and decreased need for student supervision within the school.

8. Building Bridges: At Risk Youth - Developing an Alternative Learning Environment to Help Build Success. (2000). Catherine Hamblin and Helen Horsman, Moose Jaw. Project #44.

A high school teacher was disturbed by the number of students dropping out of school due to factors related to either school, family, community or self. Concluding that these students' needs were not met in a regular school setting, she began working with several school divisions and service agencies to create an alternative learning environment in which at-risk students could succeed. Over three years, an Alternative Learning Program was developed and potential students were contacted with the cooperation of schools and service agencies. The program was characterized by alternative hours, one-on-on work with teachers, attention to nutritional and recreational needs, use of technologies, individualized instruction, and a small, safe school setting. After the program's first year of operation, an independent evaluation by Saskatchewan Education indicated that the program was meeting the needs of the students it served; however, numerous recommendations were made with respect to the adequate provision of resources and organization to support the program.

9. Project "X" (Excellence). (1999-2002). Loretta Tetreault and the staff of Sacred Heart Community School, Regina. Projects #43, #49 and #77.

Led by a new principal, the staff of a violent, out-of-control Catholic community school faced the challenge of establishing a safe, orderly learning environment. Over a four-year period, numerous changes were introduced:

• Year One. A school philosophy was defined, a responsibility plan was developed, in-school suspensions were implemented, activities were devised for rewarding good behaviour, line-ups were eliminated as a source of strife among the students, and unnecessary rules about students entering the school were removed.
• Year Two. The school dealt with a "class from Hell" by experimenting with a unique Grade 2/6 split. The Learning Resource Program was changed from a pull-out format to a preventative, in-class format. Strong emphasis was put on teachers modeling the values and behaviours that students were expected to demonstrate. Opportunities were found to celebrate every success.
• Year Three. The school day was adjusted to provide a half-hour, in-school lunch break, allow classes to end at 3:00, and replace recesses with two 20-minute periods of high quality physical education each day. A new policy requiring students to either pay for lost library books or work off the money resulted in the return of virtually all books and a record-setting library circulation.
• Year Four. Teachers began experimenting with brain-based learning, multi-aged classrooms, and other unique grade splits (Grades 2/4 and 3/6).
  By the end of year four, the number of full-day suspensions each year had decreased from 127 to 21. The school's enrolment was climbing, and the students' academic performance was improving as measured by the Canadian Test of Basic Skills.

10. A Control Theory Approach to Student Management. (1999). Jane Macleod, Callie Bourhis, and Megan O'Shea, Vincent Massey School, Saskatoon. Project #21.

Teachers in a K-8 elementary school found that student discipline was taking up a disproportionate amount of their time. Led by a staff member trained in Glasser's Control Theory, they agreed to implement Control Theory at all grade levels. Feedback on the effectiveness of this effort was gathered at regular meetings of the staff. The project improved staff cohesiveness, teacher-student relationships, the number of responsible behaviour choices by students, and the amount of time that classes spent on task. Fewer students were sent to the school's administrators for discipline. However, the implementation of Control Theory involved significant personal risk-taking by teachers and students and the process of adapting to new ways of thinking was slow for some people. Moreover, changes in the school staff and the voluntary nature of teacher participation in the project eventually provided insurmountable barriers to on-going implementation of the theory school-wide.

11. Improving Self-Esteem. (1998). Majella Gareau, Mary Koenig, Linda Cairns, Eric Harder, Rosella Nelson and the staff of St. Louis School. Project #29.

A K-12 school initiated a school-wide social skills program that led over several years to significant growth in both staff and students. The coordinated, persistent development of self-esteem became a central part of that initiative. Inspired by Roger Sparks' work on self-esteem, teachers committed themselves to the implementation of activities at all grade levels that created a sense of security, identity, ability and purpose in students and a sense of trust and community within the school. As the teachers saw the behaviour of their students improve, they compiled a handbook of many of the activities that they had used successfully to raise students' self-esteem.

12. Dynamic Harmonization in a School Restructuring Endeavour. (1997). Jayne Hudson, Saskatoon. Project #31.

An elementary school was engaged in applying Glasser's Control Theory and developing a Quality School. To assist in the change process, staff members agreed to experiment with dynamic harmonization, i.e., a process of shared decision-making that involves authentic consensus. The distribution of power within the school changed dramatically to create a more trusting, caring and cooperative climate. Teacher-student relationships also changed as teachers learned to listen, reflect, communicate, and attend to group dynamics. Teachers became committed to building a learning community around their school.

13. Implementation of "A School-Based Anti-Violence Program". (1995). Brenda Tenold-Phillips, Prince Albert. Project #12.

A K-6 school in Prince Albert implemented a school-wide violence prevention program that involved the use of Second Step and a resource package from the London Family Court Clinic. The teachers involved in the project agreed that a school-wide approach to violence was valuable, although only anecdotal evidence was available as to its effect on students. Feedback from parents about the project was also generally positive although parent meetings about the project were not well attended. There was some resistance to a project that implied the school had a problem with violence, and some roadblocks to effective implementation were encountered with respect to curriculum space, teacher time, in-service for teachers, the commitment level of some teachers, consistency of administrative support, and parent and community involvement.

In addition to these thirteen projects that focussed directly on student management or school atmosphere, several other McDowell projects have made peripheral comments on the need to focus on the creation of safe, caring schools. For example, in The Yellow Bus Project (2002), Diana Clarke surveyed students and parents about the students' experiences in riding the bus to school and was disturbed to find that their greatest concern was the stress many students experienced due to bullying. Also, in Adolescent Girls and Classroom Discourse (1995), Heather Blair, Agnes Rolheiser and Susan Reschny described an underlying tension in the daily interactions between girls and boys in a middle years classroom, with the girls experiencing intimidation and violence at the hands of the boys.

Some Possibilities Suggested by McDowell Research

Given the nature of action research, it is inappropriate to talk about drawing general conclusions from the Foundation's current body of research on the creation of safe, caring schools. However, there are some findings in these projects that are worthy of comment and discussion by the educational community. Six points for consideration are given below:

1. General change in student behaviour involves acculturation and may require a change in school culture.

Most of the McDowell researchers who have explored facets of student management would agree that students must take responsibility for their own behaviour. However, many of the projects that were most successful in improving student behaviour on a significant scale moved beyond an emphasis on changing the individual to changing the conditions, practices and values in the school that influence student behaviour. For example, they reorganized the school to change the relationships between students, between students and teachers; or between the school and community; they adapted the curriculum to teach language, ideas, and skills that enabled students to actualize values such as tolerance and respect; or they adopted new instructional strategies so that students could experience a greater degree of choice, flexibility, or individuality. These changes were, in effect, changes in the culture that supported and informed student behaviour. They enabled students to see the world differently and make different decisions about how they would live. Behavioural choices were still made on an individual basis, but the broader culture of the school or educational program could be seen actively guiding and informing those choices.
These projects suggest that an understanding of culture may be as important in today's schools as an understanding of child development or pedagogy. It would appear that at least some schools are being asked to play a critical role in assisting children as a social group to make sense of their rapidly changing society and provide them with a set of practices, ideologies, and values to live by. Such a finding dovetails with the report of Saskatchewan's Task Force on the Role of the School, which has described the "tectonic" forces affecting schools and the need to adapt schools to a new role as a support and guide for the "whole child".

2. Improvement in student behaviour follows the boundaries of cultural change.

One of the first challenges in introducing cultural change to improve student behaviour is deciding where to start. Most teachers recognize that the culture of the school exists within a larger cultural context defined by ethnic affiliation, geographic location, and many other factors. Some are overwhelmed by the difficulty of directly affecting elements of the larger culture that are leading to student misbehaviour, and a portion of these teachers may conclude that little can be done to improve student behaviour when so many negative influences outside the school are exerted on the children they teach. However, McDowell researchers who have tackled the issue of student behaviour have shown that a variety of starting points may be used successfully:

• the classroom Some projects have focussed on the school staff, familiarizing them with new ideas and behaviours, such as Choice Theory or consensual decision-making, and then encouraging teachers to share the new way of seeing and behaving with students.
• Many have focussed on the school, organizing staff and students in a school-wide focus on achieving defined goals, such as improving self-esteem, developing social skills, or having students make choices about their own learning.
• At least one school isolated students and teachers from extremely negative forces in the surrounding community (e.g., gangs and drug dealers), and concentrated on developing a positive community bounded by the walls of the school and the parameters of the school day.
• Other schools have reached out to the larger school community and provided varying degrees of involvement for parents, Elders, and community members in the planning, decision-making and implementation of school programs affecting student behaviour.
  

Regardless of their starting point, most projects were successful in improving student behaviour within the boundaries of, school, or group that was the focus of improvement efforts. However, when students moved outside those boundaries, and the culture that was developed within them, they often reverted to unacceptable behaviour. One major problem faced by special programs for behaviourally challenged students was transitions. Often these students did not apply the new behavioural norms that they had learned to the regular classroom or school setting or their lives in the community, where the culture had not changed to support them.

3. A school-wide focus is most effective in improving student behaviour.
At first glance, the thirteen McDowell projects related to safe, caring schools may appear to deal with ideas and approaches that are all over the map. Further examination reveals an interesting pattern. One project focuses on an alternative program for behaviourally challenged students outside the regular school (Hamblin, 2000), and two projects focus on special programs for behaviourally challenged students that interface with the school, but the vast majority of projects focus on a school-wide approach to managing student behaviour. This fact may indicate how teachers instinctively understand that general improvement in student behaviour can be achieved effectively only when programs and approaches are implemented across all grades and areas of study. Although one teacher or a group of teachers may affect student behaviour on a smaller scale in their classrooms, the potential for more significant, widespread behavioural improvement is increased when the work of each teacher is reinforced by colleagues and students throughout the school. Collaboration, communication, and common goals are essential parts of this school-wide focus.

4. Schools need to examine their responsibility for student behaviour.
If it is understood that the creation of a safe, caring school depends on the creation of a school culture that fosters security and caring, then schools need to look beyond the provision of adequate policies and processes for student discipline to the cultural norms inherent in their structures, programs and processes. Do current conditions in the school encourage the kind of behaviour in students, staff, parents, and others that is desired? If not, why not? What might be changed to encourage all students to develop and maintain positive behaviour patterns? McDowell projects have shown that when this question is asked, a wide variety of creative ideas come forward that may contribute to behavioural improvement. The ideas may be small, e.g., having students work to pay off library fines, or they may be large, e.g., the implementation of shared decision-making with students, all staff, and parents. The key is that the school accepts its measure of responsibility for student behaviour and looks for ways to build a culture that supports positive behaviour.

5. Lasting change in student behaviour requires planning, continuity and persistence.
Deliberate cultural changes may be introduced quickly but they do not tend to last unless they are embedded in the everyday life of the teachers and students in a school. Unless the change is carefully planned to include on-going reinforcement and acculturation of new students, staff, and community members, it is likely to stall after experiencing initial success. Several McDowell projects followed this pattern. The researchers experienced success in improving students' behaviour in the year that the action research was conducted, only to see students revert to inappropriate behaviour is subsequent years. In some cases, the school lost focus on the change it was trying to implement once the project ended and the McDowell Foundation research grant was no longer available. Usually the grants were used to provide teachers with release time to read, reflect, meet, discuss and plan. Many McDowell researchers commented that the lack of time in most schools for these basic activities hinders and often prevents concerted attempts at school improvement.
However, other barriers also limited McDowell researchers' efforts to effect positive change. Many projects faded in intensity when changeovers in staff or school leadership lowered the level of staff participation or commitment to a program or course of action. In some school divisions, hiring and transfer policies appeared to work against the ability of school staffs to develop and implement long-term changes.

6. Teachers need to model the behaviours students are asked to adopt.
Many McDowell projects recognized that the creation of safe, caring schools depended on the development of school staffs who felt safe and cared for and were able to model positive behaviour for students. In several cases, the power structures in schools were altered to foster the necessary feelings of security and empowerment. Teachers allowed students choice in their learning; principals extended decision-making power to all professional staff, and in one case, to all staff, students and parents. In other McDowell projects, staff participated in the same programs and processes as students, developing their own self-esteem or learning Choice Theory alongside their students. It was recognized that actions speak more powerfully than words, and it would be difficult for students to accept any set of behavioural expectations unless their teachers were prepared to accept and demonstrate the same behaviours.

Top