(CHIPS) Programme

An Evaluation of theChildLine in Partnership with Schools(CHIPS) Programme

Peter K Smith 1 and Denise Watson 21 Unit for School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths College,University of London 2 Independent Educational Consultant

Research Report RR570

RESEARCH

Research Report No 570

An Evaluation of the ChildLine in Partnership with Schools

(CHIPS) Programme

Peter K Smith1 and Denise Watson2

1Unit for School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London

2Independent Educational Consultant The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills. © Goldsmiths College, University of London 2004

2

ISBN 1 84478 302 2

1

CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Aims 6 Team Composition 6 Ode to a Peer Mentor 7 Background 8 Methodology of Evaluation 10 Analysis Methods 11 Findings 12 Features of the Scheme 12 School Philosophy, Senior Leadership, Support and Scheme Co-ordination

15

Selection of Pupils to be Trained 18 Training 20 Awareness Raising about the Scheme 23 Usage of the Scheme 25 Status and Morale of the Trained Pupils 26 Supervision of the Trained Pupils 27 The Impact of the Scheme 29 Issues Related to Specific Aspects of the Scheme 37 Examples of Good Practice 39 Summary and Recommendations 43 Appendix A: Schools taking part in the survey 47 Appendix B: Interview format with head teachers and CHIPS co-ordinators

49

Appendix C: Questionnaire for pupils and staff 50

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AIMS

The aims of the project were to provide an evaluation of the CHIPS programme, the

impact it has made, ways in which good practice may be shared, and ways in which

CHIPS might be improved.

METHODS

The team contacted 20 schools (10 primary, 2 middle, 8 secondary), visited 19, and

received questionnaires from 19. Each visit lasted between half a day and a day. At each

visit, interviews were held with relevant staff, and discussions held with pupils trained

by CHIPS. Also, questionnaires were collected from pupils generally, usually one or

two whole classes, and from staff in the school, asking about knowledge of the peer

support system, and opinions about its effectiveness.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our general impression of the work of the CHIPS programmes was favourable, and that

it provides ‘value for money’. The schemes are varied, but are very generally seen

positively by both staff and pupils, in primary and secondary schools. The money spent

on CHIPS mainly goes on training, and this is highly praised. In many schools,

motivated and dedicated staff have used the CHIPS support in innovative and

imaginative ways. Some schools provide models of good practice in a variety of

respects.

Generally, there is no doubt that the training, and experience of peer support, benefits

those trained. It is also clear that individual pupils have benefited from receiving peer

support. Many staff and pupils (about half) also think that it has helped reduce bullying;

although quantitative evidence in this respect is largely lacking. The CHIPS work does

more than help reduce bullying; but equally, anti-bullying work certainly needs to do

more than rely on CHIPS and peer support, helpful though this may be.

3

We believe that the general success and positive evaluation of the CHIPS schemes in

schools, warrants continuing and indeed enhanced support. However, we do also believe

that improvements can be made to aspects of the training, supervision and operation of

the schemes. In some schools, difficulties were not being addressed thoroughly enough,

and some schemes fell short of achieving their full potential. Good practice needs to be

disseminated more widely, and evaluation must be taken more seriously and done more

systematically. We make some specific recommendations for ChildLine, and for

schools.

For ChildLine

• The capacity of the Regional Coordinators needs to be increased. If funding

allows this to happen we would recommend smaller regions in order to maximise

time spent in schools and thus meet the likely increase in demand.

• Consideration should be given to the establishing of regional training centres for

secondary schools, based in a school and modelled on the Flegg High School,

Norfolk.

• Pyrimadal organization of schools in local clusters could increase liaison between

primary and secondary schools, to mutual benefit.

• Schools need to be made more aware of the possibilities of ChildLine top-up and

more advanced training as the initial schemes become established and ready for

further development; a brochure on this could be helpful.

• A checklist of good practice or of issues to be addressed could be developed, to

help trainers and schools optimize their peer support scheme.

• With increased capacity ChildLine could play a greater role in

developing networks of schools for mutual support and the sharing of

good practice

fostering the peer support schemes across the primary/secondary

transition

supporting schools in more effective communication of the scheme to all

the school community including governors and lunchtime supervisors

4

advising schools on the effective monitoring of the scheme’s impact, on

levels of aggression and bullying and indeed on other indicators such as

perceived school safety, and school climate. We would recommend that

any increased funding is conditional upon such monitoring being

instituted on a regular basis.

For Schools

PLANNING:

• Ensure that the scheme is embedded within the overall philosophy and aims of

the school, and engages children at an appropriate level. Detailed schemes

cannot be ‘parachuted in’ from other schools, although schools can consider good

practice elsewhere and also learn from others’ mistakes.

• Ensure that the Head Teacher as well as other members of the school leadership

team have an active role in supporting the scheme.

• Plan well ahead for initial and further training if ChildLine regional coordinators

are required to be involved.

• Make use of opportunities for top-up training and more advanced training. This

should be made more use of than at present, and be specific to the needs at a

school.

ESTABLISHING THE SCHEME:

• Ensure that all members of the school community are aware of the scheme and

understand the role of the trained pupils and how all staff can support and

enhance the work.

• Wherever possible address the gender balance of the trained pupils, for example

through the selection process.

• Ensure that the trained pupils perform the roles for which they have been trained,

minimising ‘administrative’ and ‘routine’ duties as much as possible (a danger if

peer mentors are assigned to tutor groups).

SUPERVISION:

5

• Ensure that the scheme coordinator has the capacity (time, resources, and

authority) to support the trained pupils and lead on further development of the

scheme.

• Maintain regular supervisory meetings (consider a tiered system for large

numbers of peer mentors in secondary school); take opportunities to continue

training, in these.

• Get feedback from mentors at supervisory meetings or (secondary schools)

through a report system, but keep it simple.

MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING:

• Consider ways of working with and sharing issues and good practice across

networks of same-phase schools; and across the primary/secondary phases where

this is feasible.

• Look for ways of monitoring the impact of the scheme against clear criteria.

6

AN EVALUATION OF THE CHILDLINE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

SCHOOLS (CHIPS) PROGRAMME

AIMS

The aims of the project were to provide an evaluation of the CHIPS programme, the

impact it has made, ways in which good practice may be shared, and ways in which

CHIPS might be improved.

TEAM COMPOSITION

The evaluation team consisted of:

Professor Peter K Smith [Professor of Psychology and Head of the Unit for School and

Family Studies at Goldsmiths College, University of London]

and Mrs Denise Watson OBE [independent educational consultant (and former head

teacher), Mansfield Woodhouse, Notts ([email protected])].

We are especially grateful to Mr Neil Tippett who carried out the quantitative analyses.

We thank Professor Helen Cowie for commenting on the design of the questionnaires

and Ms Jess Mahdavi for help with mailings to schools.

We would also like to thank Lindsay Gilbert and staff at ChildLine for their cooperation;

and all the staff and pupils at the schools that participated in the study.

7

ODE TO A PEER MENTOR

I used to get bullied, and

I didn’t know what to do

I wouldn’t want to come to school

I’d pretend I had the flu

But now things are so different

Schools a better place to be

Because of the Peer Mentors

And what they did for me

They helped me with my problem

And supported me all they could

They made me feel so happy

Like everybody should

If you want someone to talk to

Or to speak on your part

The Peer Mentors will do it

Through a gentle heart to heart

So if you have a problem

There’s someone there for you

To solve whatever issues

To help you work it through.

Natalie Tormey (14 years)

Plant Hill High School, Manchester.

8

BACKGROUND

CHIPS (Childline in Partnership with Schools) was introduced in 1997. Its aim is to

raise awareness about ChildLine and to encourage schools to support their pupils in

setting up projects run by and for pupils in tackling issues that affect their lives, such as

bullying and violence. CHIPS endorses the view that young people can help one

another, that they have a right to be heard and that they can play a key part in making

changes to improve the quality of their own lives. CHIPS initiatives include regional and

national conferences, awareness raising days and resources for PSHCE, and training for

teachers. Many schools request help from CHIPS on how to set up peer support systems

to strengthen their anti-bullying policies (ChildLine, 2002).

With funding from the DfES as well as charitable sources, it now has 6 regional

coordinators in England, and 2 associated workers. In addition to London, there are

regional offices in Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester, Yorkshire, and the South-

West (Devon). The work of regional coordinators mainly involves awareness raising of

CHIPS schemes (for example in school assemblies, PSHCE lessons), and training pupils

and staff in peer support schemes; it also includes anti-bullying workshops with young

people and adults.

Regional coordinators must have a suitable background (counselling, teaching, social

work, youth work), and they have 4 or 5 meetings per year to share best practice and

materials. The original training of regional co-ordinators (all of whom then were trained

counsellors) was carried out in 1997 by Helen Cowie and Patti Wallace. Training was

based on the model that peer volunteers should receive need-based, goal-directed and

experiential training and that they are supervised or debriefed on a regular basis. Peer

support systems, according to this model, require that the peer supporter should be

skilled in communication, should adopt a problem-solving approach and (in ways that

are appropriate for the age of the volunteer) should be able to listen actively to another

person and be sensitive to that person’s difficulties (Cowie and Wallace, 2000)

9

Schools generally approach ChildLine directly, and need to book training some 3 to 4

months in advance. Schools pay travel expenses, and are encouraged to fund-raise for

ChildLine; there is no charge made for pupil training and general awareness work, but a

small (c.£50) charge is made for teacher training. Pupil training is for a minimum of 6

hours (often more); with groups of around 20 (normal maximum 25). Pupils who

complete the training get a ChildLine certificate. Further training opportunities are

available, and are flexible depending on a school’s needs.

Coordinators evaluate schemes in different ways; but evaluation forms for primary, and

secondary, schools were developed by ChildLine in 2003 and are beginning to be put

into operation. There are forms for before training (after initial contact); a week after

first training; 6 months on; and 18 months on. There is also a form to evaluate further

training. The peer support training is designed around a standard set of learning

objectives that all co-ordinators use to ensure consistency across the country whilst

allowing co-ordinators freedom within the objectives to tailor the training to individual

needs.

In 2000, and again in 2002, ChildLine launched teacher packs for primary schools, to fit

in with KS 1 and 2 in the national curriculum. Chips Chat, a newsletter mainly aimed at

peer supporters, is sent to all secondary schools on the mailing list (c.1,000). Several

national and regional conferences have also been held, and pupils sometimes visit

ChildLine offices for feedback, advice, and top-up training.

References

ChildLine (2002) Setting Up a Peer Support Scheme. London: ChildLine.

Cowie, H. & Wallace, P. (2000) Peer Support in Action. London: Sage.

METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION

10

An initial visit was made to ChildLine, to obtain an overview of CHIPS activities.

ChildLine also produced a list of some 30 schools suggested for contact.

The team selected 20 schools to contact (10 primary, 2 middle, 8 secondary) (see

Appendix A). Of these, 19 were visited. One primary school sent questionnaires, but a

visit was not scheduled; and one secondary school was visited, but the scheme had not

been fully launched and questionnaires were not appropriate. Selection was made to give

a range of schemes, operating over different time periods, and across England. Initial

and final visits were made by both members of the team, and to the other schools, by one

member of the team. Each visit lasted between half a day and a day. Briefing and

questionnaires were sent in advance.

At each visit, the following took place (see Appendix B):

• Interview with the Head Teacher (or in some cases Deputy Head)

• Interview with coordinator of CHIPS services (in some cases, interviews with

additional staff involved in CHIPS delivery)

• Discussion group meeting with pupils who have been trained in the Peer Support

scheme by CHIPS; these meetings typically had 6 to 10 pupils, and sometimes

two separate groups were held.

At each visit the team also collected:

• Questionnaires from pupils generally, usually one or two whole classes.

• Questionnaires from staff in the school.

These questionnaires focused on knowledge of the peer support system, and opinions

about its effectiveness (see Appendix C).

ANALYSIS METHODS

11

Two middle schools took part; one gave questionnaires to Y5 and Y6, using the primary

school version of the questionnaire, and this data is included in the primary school data;

the other gave questionnaires to Y7 and Y9, using the secondary school version of the

questionnaire, and this data is included in the secondary school data set.

Interviews:

Immediately after each visit, we made consolidated notes from our records, of the mode

of operation of the peer support system at a school, its history, and different opinions as

to its effectiveness, elements of good practice, and difficulties still being worked with.

Some quotes from the interviews are used in this report.

Questionnaires:

Altogether we obtained 455 primary school and 379 secondary school pupil

questionnaires (total = 834). This included 178 who had been trained as peer supporters.

We also obtained 109 primary staff questionnaires, and 95 secondary staff questionnaires

(total = 204). The distribution of types of staff was: Senior leadership staff 11, Middle

leadership staff 21, Class/subject teachers 83, Non-teaching/Pupil support staff 67,

Miscellaneous/Not stated 22.

The structured responses were entered on an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences) data base, by individual school. The total sample data were analysed by

school type (primary/secondary), and comparing pupil and staff responses. Further

analyses examine age and sex differences in pupil responses; some differences in

response between users and non-users of the peer support scheme in operation; and

between pupils and staff for some questions which are identically worded.

The open-ended responses on the questionnaires were transcribed, and lodged with the

interview material for that school. Some quotes are used in this report.

FINDINGS

12

FEATURES OF THE SCHEME

There was a considerable range of programmes adopted by the schools we visited and

clear differences in emphasis between primary and secondary.

Primary schools

The schemes generally involved looking out for pupils at playtimes and/or lunchtimes

who are upset or lonely. The trained pupils were described by one school coordinator as

the “eyes and ears in the playground.” They also reported fights and instances of

bullying they came across.

School used many different names for their trained pupils. These included

• Peer Mentors

• Playground Pals

• Befrienders

• Buddies

• Befriending Play Leaders

• Listening Befrienders.

Several schools had benches in the playground where pupils who need help or who are

lonely, can sit. They can then be approached by a trained pupil. These had various

names: Buddy Bench, Buddy Bus Stop, Friendship Bench or Friendship Stop. They

were not exclusively used by pupils needing support, which made it difficult for the

trained pupils to know who to approach, but avoided stigmatizing those who did use it.

A playground duty rota was the main way of organising the trained pupils and this also

ensured that these pupils had their own time for play. Trained pupils were usually

identified by coloured caps or, less frequently, bibs or badges when on duty. One school

13

however had discontinued using such identification as it was unpopular, but had yet to

resolve the question of how the trained pupils were to be identified.

Some primary schools had developed the original scheme further and involved the

trained pupils in a variety of other activities. These included

• Activity leaders, leading structured games activities

• Supporting learning at a homework club

• Reception work

• One to one work with very young pupils who needed support in learning how to

play with others

• Escort duty to and from a dining room which was a little way off the main school

site.

One school also had a system of rewards (stickers and certificates), which could be

awarded by the trained pupils to others who had been friendly and co-operative in the

playground. Positive language (not to mention alliteration) was a key feature of the

awards which were given to:

• Pleasant polite pupils

• Cheerful caring comrade

• Super shining star

• Fantastically friendly footballer

• Proper playground pals

One school has plans to involve the trained pupils in the design and development of new

playground facilities.

Some schools had Bully Boxes where pupils needing support could put a note into the

box to be followed up by a trained pupil. There was no evidence as to the effectiveness

of these boxes and some schools had discontinued their use.

14

A few schools had taken part in ChildLine conferences and held workshops.

Secondary schools

There was a greater variety of schemes in the secondary schools we visited, however the

term Peer Mentors for the trained pupils, appeared to be common across virtually all the

schools.

The schemes involved at least one of the following features:

• A lunchtime support/activities club for vulnerable pupils. One to one support

could also take place at the club.

• One to one mentoring, sometimes by appointment or as a ‘drop in’. This was

either in a designated room or within a section of an area such as the school

library. Sometimes Peer Mentors were linked with a named individual pupil for a

term, or a year.

• Schemes which link the Peer Mentors with younger aged tutor groups, whom

they visit regularly to help the tutor, join in activities with pupils, and listen to

problems. Peer Mentors sometimes do this singly, sometimes in Buddy Groups of

two or three.

• A Bully Box system by which pupils can seek help from Peer Mentors

anonymously.

• An electronic equivalent of the Bully Box where pupils needing support can

email confidentially using the school’s intranet.

As with the primary schools, the secondary school peer mentors were developing their

role and responsibilities into new areas or linking with other events and initiatives.

Examples included:

• Pupil learning mentors

• Pupil First Aiders

• Working with primary schools on anti bullying strategies

15

• Fundraising to support Childline

• Involvement in anti-racism campaigns

• Conferences

• Producing Videos.

One of the most successful and well established Peer Mentoring schemes in a 12-16

school, had developed into the school becoming the regional training centre and

establishing a training ‘arm’ as part of the scheme.

SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY, SENIOR LEADERSHIP SUPPORT AND SCHEME

CO-ORDINATION

The reasons schools contacted Childline about the CHIPS project, and the route taken to

do so, were variable but there was a significant degree of commonality between the

primary and secondary sectors. The most frequent reasons were:

• Recommendation by another school. This was particularly common in areas

where there were established networks and families of schools.

• LEA recommendation. This usually occurred on a course, often related to

PSHCE.

• A link with the Healthy Schools initiative.

• Pupil relationships had been identified as an issue by either OfSTED or in several

schools by a recently appointed headteacher.

• Vulnerable children had been identified

• Aggressive play was a feature of the playground.

• The schools were seeking ways of giving pupils further opportunity to take

responsibility.

School Philosophy

16

Almost without exception, the head teachers and other senior staff, whether in primary,

middle or secondary school, described their involvement with the CHIPS project as part

of their underpinning philosophy about pupil empowerment. One head teacher described

the scheme in her school as:

“Part of the strategy for active pupil democracy which is the underpinning

principle of the school.”

The other ‘planks’ in this school’s strategy included the introduction of a prefect system,

a change to vertical tutor groups, the student council and the peer mentoring scheme.

They were all introduced as a package and were all complementary.

Many head teachers referred to the importance of the school council. Some school

councils had actually approved the involvement in the CHIPS project and played a part

in the selection of pupils to be trained. Many head teachers stressed that if a peer support

system is to be effective, pupils should already be used to taking responsibility within the

school. In addition to school councils, other opportunities for pupil participation included

year councils, reading buddies, play leaders and some sort of prefect or ‘senior student’

system. However coherence between all of the strategies was not always evident. Whilst

at senior leadership level the philosophy and ‘big picture’ was clear, this was not always

the case with other staff and pupils.

As a further outcome of involvement with the CHIPS project, a number of schools had

for example, re-written their anti-bullying policy, revised the school code of conduct,

conducted anti-bullying workshops, implemented an Assertive Discipline policy and

made clear links with the PHSCE curriculum. Circle time was also frequently mentioned

as a linked complementary initiative.

Senior Leadership Support

Whilst the degree of head teacher involvement varied to a large extent in the schools we

visited, it became apparent that the active support and facilitation of the CHIPS scheme

17

by the head teacher or another member of the Senior Leadership Team, was a crucial

factor in the success of the scheme.

In the minority of schools where the head teacher knew little or nothing about the

scheme and was not involved in any way, the scheme lacked a clear overview and

direction. In one case, although the pupils had been trained, several months later the peer

support scheme had still not been implemented.

In-school Co-ordination

The role of the scheme coordinator varied little between schools, whether primary or

secondary. The coordinators took overall responsibility for the day to day running of the

scheme and the support of the trained pupils as a group and as individuals. Almost all

attended the pupil training and some had undertaken additional briefings along with

other staff. In some schools the pupils themselves took much of the responsibility for

organising the scheme but this varied a great deal.

In a small number of primary schools the head teacher was also the scheme coordinator.

However it was more usual for the coordinator to be a learning mentor (where schools

had this post), or a teacher who often was also the PHSCE coordinator. It was not

unusual for the responsibility to be a job share or belong to a part time teacher; this

arrangement brings its own challenges. In another school the coordinator was a former

teaching assistant who now works in the school office.

In secondary schools the coordinator was more likely to be a teacher, head of year,

learning mentor or occasionally a deputy or assistant head teacher.

Whatever the formal status of the coordinator, the necessary characteristics of the person,

in addition to their ability to work with the pupils, appeared to be ‘drive’ and to have the

ability to initiate actions and persuade and influence other staff. One head teacher was

very clear that the coordinator needs:

18

“A clear brief and appropriate time and remuneration.”

SELECTION OF PUPILS TO BE TRAINED

Whilst there was some variation within the primary and secondary sectors, accepting

pupil volunteers from the designated year group(s) was common amongst primary

schools. The majority of secondary schools employed some form of selection by

application and often interview. ChildLine regional coordinators can, and do, offer

support, advice and sample application forms.

One school had used a class nomination procedure – each pupil was asked to nominate

one girl and one boy in their class. This had advantages of involving all pupils, reducing

jealousy, and achieving a good gender balance. Nomination by teachers or heads of year

can also produce good peer supporters, but maybe also a number of less interested pupils.

However volunteering gets everyone thinking about whether to join, and may produce

more suitable or committed pupils, especially if combined with some selection process.

Selection by application and interview can be time consuming. Schools that interviewed

all applicants (80 pupils in one school for example) had to devote a day or two days time

for one or two teachers. All schools that employed selection also had to develop

strategies to support the unsuccessful applicants.

Primary Schools

A number of schools indicated that in addition to the volunteers, usually from the top

two year groups, they targeted pupils who staff felt would benefit from the training.

Often this was because pupils were shy, or in at least two cases because the pupils were

on the verge of being excluded as a result of their behaviour. However there was a

tendency in the second wave of training, to move away from accepting all volunteers and

have the pupils apply by form or letter, sometimes followed by interview, and usually

involving consultation with the class teacher and others.

19

Pupils who had gone through a more rigorous selection process tended to be very proud

of their achievement and said that it had made them take their application more seriously.

On the other hand pupils who had been accepted without a selection process were very

happy with this. Some commented that the training would weed out the ‘undesirable’

pupils who failed to show commitment.

All the schools recognised the issue of gender imbalance. Overall the average ratio of

girls to boys trained was about 3:1. One school initially trained one boy and one girl

from each class thus ensuring a gender balance, but in the second wave they changed

this, resulting in a new cohort of 16 girls and 11 boys.

In a few schools the existing trained pupils played a part in the selection of the new

pupils and contributed to their training. This worked well and ensured that the pupil’s

real experience and expertise was passed on.

Secondary Schools

The age range of pupils to be trained showed greater variety than was the case with

primary schools. Some schools had peer mentors in every year group, some chose Year 9

to avoid the pressure of GCSE studies whilst others chose their one or two top year

groups whether they be Years 10 and 11 or 12 and 13.

Like the primary schools, some secondary schools targeted pupils for training who

themselves had particular needs.

Most schools had a rigorous selection process and most also consulted staff who know

the pupils well. The most rigorous process we came across involved interested pupils

applying by form, which also had sections for completion by a peer, the form teacher and

one for the parents. This was followed by an interview. In the schools that used a

20

rigorous selection process, the staff and pupils were convinced that it was essential for

maintaining the right calibre of pupil to be peer mentors.

As with the primary schools the girl/boy ratio was about 3:1 but there were notable

exceptions where schools appeared to have no difficulty in recruiting excellent male role

models. The factor in these schools appears to be the high degree of respect and kudos

associated with being a peer mentor.

TRAINING

In most cases the training was delivered at the schools by the CHIPS regional

coordinator. Some schools also had awareness training for either the whole staff or a

selected number. Most of the pupil training was preceded by assemblies to explain the

scheme.

Although the training covered common broad areas, schools appreciated the trainer’s

ability to be flexible and adapt the training to the level of the work the pupils would be

involved in as well as their age and maturity levels. The importance of having an

‘outside’ trainer was mentioned many times by staff and pupils. It made the training

seem important and special. One deputy head teacher who is also the school coordinator,

said:

“CHIPS has empowered the school so this school is now a leader in good

practice”

The broad areas covered in the training were common to primary and secondary schools

although the materials used and methodology was adapted. They included:

• Team building

• Self awareness, and awareness about bullying

• Communication

• Helping

21

• Knowing limits of expertise and when to refer

• Roles and responsibilities

• Confidentiality and ethical issues

• Child protection issues

All pupils who successfully completed the training received a certificate, which was

commonly presented in a school assembly.

The delivery of the training varied considerably between the primary and secondary

sectors.

Primary

‘Lower’ level training for pupils who were going to be playground pals or buddies

usually comprised two half day sessions. The longer and more intense training for pupils

going to take a befriending role comprised weekly two hour sessions for four or five

weeks. These usually took place whilst the school was in session but one school held

them after school to avoid disruption and to solve a problem of a training room being

available. In all cases a member of staff who was usually the coordinator, attended the

training and it was common for the head teacher to drop in too.

Universally the training received very positive comments from pupils and staff, ranging

from “good” to “phenomenal.” From pupil questionnaires, of 135 pupils trained, 78%

felt the training had been very useful, and 18% a bit useful; only 6 pupils (5%) felt the

training had not been very useful. Many pupils expressed a wish for further training

which could now relate more directly to their particular roles and circumstances.

Secondary

22

The pupil training in secondary schools was concentrated into full days. Usually there

was an initial awareness raising day followed by a more intensive day. Several schools

took advantage of the staff training on offer.

Pupil views and staff views coincided in their positive nature. The training was variously

described as “very effective,” “well paced,” “not patronising,” and “good on

confidentiality issues.” One trained peer mentor said:

“I’ve never learned so much in one day” and “what they taught us stuck.”

From pupil questionnaires, of 43 pupils trained as Peer Mentors, 77% said the training

had been very useful, and 23% a bit useful; none of the peer mentors rated the training as

not being very useful.

The secondary school trained pupils showed great awareness of their enhanced skill

levels and how they were not only skills they would have for life, but they could be

usefully employed outside of school including dealing with parents and siblings at home!

Pupils in one school expressed the view that the balance of the training could be adjusted

to focus less on the really serious issues, which were rare and would be immediately

referred to an adult, and more on how to deal with friendship and bullying issues.

Top-up training

The CHIPS regional coordinators do offer top-up and more advanced training such as

mediation, in addition to the basic training of new cohorts of pupils. Not all schools were

as aware as they might be of the extended training. However there is a real danger of

demand exceeding supply and schools being disappointed that they can’t get the training

they need at the time of year they need it. For example there is likely to be a peak of

demand in the summer term for new cohort training in advance of the current trained

pupils leaving. Schools will need to plan ahead and book early.

Pupil advice

23

This is a selection of pupil comments when they were asked what advice they would give

to pupils thinking of applying to become peer supporters. They epitomise the

characteristics of successful peer supporters:

“Stick at it”

“Do your best”

“Listen hard”

“Be dedicated and strong”

“Be prepared to sacrifice your time”

“Don’t drop out”

“Be prepared for jealousy”

“It’s hard work and fun”

“Take it seriously”

“Be prepared for questions you can’t answer – just pass them on appropriately”

AWARENESS RAISING ABOUT THE SCHEME IN SCHOOLS

Most schools, primary and secondary, followed a similar process and the CHIPS regional

coordinators offer advice and support. Most schools use a combination of:

• Assemblies, including presentation of certificates

• Staff meetings

• Newsletters

• Dedicated notice boards usually with photographs of the trained pupils

• Posters

• The school web site

Examples of other ideas from individual schools include:

• Leaflets in public places (e.g. the library) designed by pupils

• Prompt sheets to help pupils explain their problem.

• Progress bulletins

24

From pupil questionnaires, a large majority of pupils showed that they were aware of

their peer support system. Within primary schools, 96% of pupils said they knew of the

scheme; among secondary school pupils this was 86% (a significant difference, F = 27.3,

p<0.001). Comparing pupils by gender, in both primary and secondary schools females

were more aware of the scheme than males (overall, 94% cf. 89%) (F = 8.9, p=0.003).

Regarding staff awareness, 97% were aware of the scheme; this is actually higher than

pupil awareness (F=7.9, p<.005); this difference is most marked in secondary schools.

In answer to whether they would know how to use the scheme, in primary schools 83%

said yes, 17% no; in secondary schools 63% said yes, and 37% no. This difference was

significant (F=53.7, p<.001). Overall, girls said yes more than boys, 81% versus 66%.

The sex difference was small in primary schools (88% vs 79%), but more marked in

secondary schools (75% vs 49%). In general then, awareness of the scheme is lowest in

secondary school boys.

Regarding staff knowledge of how to recommend a pupil to use the scheme, 86% said

yes, 14% no. Staff knowledge in this respect was less in primary (82%) than in

secondary (92%) schools (F=5.4, p<0.03).

It was not uncommon for schools to indicate that they could and should have done more

to raise the awareness and more detailed understanding of the scheme prior to

implementation. Governors, parents, part-time staff and lunchtime supervisors were all

mentioned as groups who had been less well informed than they might have been.

There was also an issue about the level of awareness with nearby schools of the same age

range and also across pyramids of schools. It was rare to find any planned sharing of

expertise, experience and good practice although this did happen occasionally on an ad

hoc basis. We found no schools offered their trained pupils opportunities for sharing with

other schools operating CHIPS schemes. With one exception there was no continuity for

trained pupils from the primary into the secondary sector, thus the secondary schools

25

were unable to capitalise on the skills of the pupils entering their school. This is an area

for development, which could be encouraged and facilitated by the regional coordinators.

Written staff comment: ‘The difficult thing is keeping it a high profile. The befrienders

need to be in a prominent place every assembly – it needs to be mentioned more often –

who they are and what they do. Perhaps a school just starting it needs a big launch from

adults from childline. The school council could mention the befrienders more – when

they report back to classes’.

USAGE OF THE SCHEMES

Usage of the schemes varied considerably. For some schemes – one-to-one mentoring,

or visiting tutor groups – usage was not really an issue. Schools that ran lunchtime

support/activities clubs also generally got a good turnout; not all these pupils necessarily

‘needed’ peer support, but provided the system was not abused this provided a safe, non-

stigmatising environment in which opportunities for more one-to-one support were

possible.

Usage of playground befriending schemes and playground benches varied a lot.

Individual befrienders or playground pals reported helping a pupil who approached them

from once every few days, to perhaps once or twice a term. They had more to do if they

also initiated games for younger pupils, helped resolve minor conflicts, or reported

serious incidents to teachers or playtime supervisors.

From the pupil questionnaires, about 50% of students in both primary (53%) and

secondary (52%) schools said that they knew someone who had used the peer support

scheme. Neither gender, nor primary/secondary level, had much influence on whether a

pupil was more likely to know of someone that had used peer support. Staff were asked

if they knew any pupil who had used the scheme; 63% in primary school and 76% in

secondary school said yes (not a significant difference).

26

Pupils were also asked if they had ever used the peer support service themselves. In

primary schools, 11% used the scheme more than once, 22% had used it once, with 67%

not having used it. In secondary schools, 8% had used it more than once, 9% had used it

once, and 83% had not used the scheme. Primary pupils use the schemes more than

secondary pupils (F=17.7, p<.001).

STATUS AND MORALE OF THE TRAINED PUPILS

In schools where the schemes are well embedded and there is an accepted culture of

pupils taking responsibility in a variety of ways, the trained pupils have a high profile

and command the respect of staff and pupils. As one head teacher put it:

“They are seen by other pupils as taking responsibility and are not ‘cissy’ or

‘uncool’.”

At the secondary school we visited which had the most long running and a very well

established scheme of peer mentors, it was common for the Heads of House to refer

pupils to the peer mentors for support; prefects on duty who spotted a problem or a

vulnerable pupil, would alert a peer mentor.

Where schemes were in their infancy, some of the trained pupils reported some teasing

when on duty with other pupils pretending to need help – often the pretence taking the

form of a broken leg! However the trained pupils tended to put this behaviour down to

jealousy and dealt with it using their newly acquired skills.

The ‘badging’ of the pupils in primary schools with their distinctive caps or bibs served

an instant recognition purpose which most accepted as being essential. However some

pupils did report teasing on this basis; the colour could be important, e.g. in one school

where befrienders wore yellow caps, they could be called ‘banana head’!

In secondary schools where the peer mentor role was usually much more discreet, most

pupils were happy to wear small badges with pride. ID cards complete with photographs

27

were unpopular in one school and grew even more so as the photograph became out of

date! In the one school where the scheme had stalled and no whole school launch of the

scheme had occurred, the trained pupils (all Year 11) were adamant that they did not

want any form of identification or any photographs on a notice board. They were fearful

of the reaction of other pupils, mainly in Year 10. This indicates how exposed peer

mentors can feel if the scheme is not embedded into whole school philosophy and

practice.

CHIPS CHAT

From questionnaire responses made by pupils who had been trained as peer supporters or

mentors in secondary schools, 48% had read CHIPS Chat. Little variation was found by

gender. Of those that read it, 42% found it to be very helpful, and 53% a bit helpful, with

5% saying it was not helpful.

SUPERVISION OF THE TRAINED PUPILS

In every scheme the school coordinator was responsible for the supervision of the trained

pupils on a day-to-day basis. The type and level of supervision depended upon the role

of the trained pupils. In primary schools this usually involved direct supervision in the

playground by the coordinator and/or duty staff including lunchtime supervisors. In

secondary schools where one to one mentoring was more common, the supervision was

less direct. Where there was an activities room run by peer mentors then the coordinator

or an alternate member of staff was always present. Where peer mentors supported tutor

groups, then the form teacher supervised and was often asked to report on the work of

the peer mentor to the coordinator.

Some schools required the trained pupils to keep notes of their work. This appeared to be

less successful in primary schools and perhaps as a result was less common. In

secondary schools some good practice was seen where pupils who worked on a one to

one basis with other pupils had to supply the coordinator with notes. This was done

28

electronically in one school. The peer mentors commented on the time this took but

realised its importance.

One secondary school had a large Peer Mentor group of 40 or 50 pupils, and of these,

some 6 to 10 each year were voted in (by the Peer Mentors) to be Representatives. These

Reps have a coordinating and minor supervisory role, ensuring meeting logistics,

checking meetings have happened etc; and Reps have weekly meetings with the staff

coordinator where they pass on Mentoring Slips (records of meetings).

Virtually every school coordinator had regular meetings with the trained pupils (or a

representative group if the number was large). Frequency varied from weekly to

fortnightly to monthly. In the latter case pupils did not think this was frequent enough.

Administrative detail formed a part of many meetings together with the sharing of

experience (without breaking confidentiality). One school had developed very successful

weekly meetings at which there was a training focus as part of the agenda thus refreshing

pupil skills, knowledge and understanding.

Many of the trained pupils we met were bursting with ideas about how their role could

be developed and how the school could be improved. Regular meetings provide a vehicle

for discussing these ideas and fostering more self-direction for the group. One secondary

school group ran its own meetings, with elected officers and a budget.

One of the key features of the support in every school was the availability of the

coordinator to be on hand to support individual trained pupils informally. Where the

coordinator is part time or there is a job share situation, the school has to ensure that

pupils do have access to this support whenever it is needed.

One head teacher, who was also the coordinator of a well-established scheme, was very

clear that the scheme needed refreshing every now and again to maintain the momentum.

29

Written staff comment: ‘Advice for another school: a link manager needs to be given

some time to set up a system, they themselves or with peer assistants will need to closely

monitor attendance of buddies, ensure they are available to work on the day to day

problems. A school that expects the link manager to simply give up their lunch hour to

run the system will put too much pressure on this individual’

THE IMPACT OF THE SCHEME

Written staff comments:

(primary): ‘The peer support has only just got started at our school but is going really

well. It is raising confidence of the buddies themselves and making the playground a

happier place already. Incidents of bullying and falling out are dropping. The buddies are

being given more and more responsibility as time goes by and are relishing in this. They

are being given spending power to help improve the playground environment. It is very

important to have a rota so children still get time to play and also to have regular

meetings with buddies’

(secondary): ‘The system works well at giving children who need it, somewhere to air

views, grievances or get unbiased advice. Role models can be provided where needed

and motivation for those who are struggling. Occasionally it can be difficult to match

mentor / mentee first time but pairings can be changed quickly if any difficulty arises.

Not all children are able to use the system to their advantage, and for these a different

system may be more beneficial’

Written pupil quotes:

(primary):

‘I think that befrienders are making lots of childrens lives easier at school’

‘I think buddies are brilliant and will help people who are being bullied’

‘When I went to a buddy it really helped me because I used to get bullied a lot’

‘I think having them has helped pupils to be more happy’

‘I think the befrienders are useful friendly people’

30

‘Befrienders are helping people with no friends, but they are not really making an

influence on bullying’

(secondary):

‘I would say the scheme helps the pupils and helps the school environment to be a

happier one. I would recommend this scheme to all schools’

‘I’d recommend it because children don’t really want to talk to adults so they can talk to

anyone of the peer mediators. They give advice, not help. They help the children come

up with their own ideas and what the consequences are’

‘I think there could be posters around the school to help people know where to go if they

need peer support. At the moment I think people are unsure of where to go’

‘I think this support scheme works well in our school as some people I know go to it and

I knew them before and now after they’ve been to the scheme they have changed’

‘I’d recommend to another school that when you pick people, you pick people who are

understanding and easy to talk to as if you have a problem, its really embarrassing if

they’re hard to talk to’

‘I recommend that make the work fun for both yourselves and the pupils because it is

important to be relaxed and then things will go smoothly and help more people without

realising it. This school is starting to benefit from the peer support but I believe things

will improve greatly and get stronger’

Impact on the school in general

The whole issue of pupil relationships, taking responsibility and tackling bullying was

high on the agenda of all the schools we visited. The CHIPS scheme was not introduced

in isolation in any school but was just one of a number of strategies which have already

been described earlier in this report. Therefore it is almost impossible to ascribe the

impact of the CHIPS scheme separately from the other strategies. Nevertheless many

head teachers did talk about a change in climate in the school and they are convinced that

31

the CHIPS scheme has made a significant contribution. One head teacher said that the

CHIPS training for staff and pupils had brought issues into the light:

“We know about the scary places, the scary times and the scary things.”

Another school talked about how the CHIPS scheme had raised the profile of the school

in the local community and the deputy head teacher said:

“We are now known as a school which deals with the issues.”

When asked if the peer support scheme was a good idea, a significant majority of both

staff and pupils responded positively, see Table 1. Overall, 72% of pupils and 94% of

staff felt it was a good idea to have the peer support service within schools, while less

than 4% of pupils (and no staff) said it was not a good idea.

Table 1. Percentages saying that the peer support scheme is a good idea

YES NOT SURE NO

Primary Boys 75 23 2

Primary Girls 82 16 1

Secondary Boys 59 35 7

Secondary Girls 67 30 3

Primary Staff 91 9 0

Secondary Staff 97 3 0

Taking the three response possibilities as a scale, we found that primary school pupils

were more in favour than secondary school (F = 27.7, p<0.001), and female pupils more

than male pupils (F = 7.4, p=0.007). Staff rated the peer support scheme higher than

pupils (F = 48.5, p<0.001).

Trained pupils are more positive (90% think it a good idea, 10% not sure) compared to

other pupils (F=34.0, p<.001). Pupils who have used the scheme are more positive (84%

think it a good idea, 16% not sure) compared to those who have not used it (F=22.5,

32

p<.001); this difference was much more pronounced in secondary schools, where 88% of

users think it a good idea, but only 58% of non-users (F=9.8, p<.002).

Impact on users

Responses of users of the scheme as to whether it helped them, are shown in Table 2.

Overall, 44% of primary school users said it helped a lot, 50% said it helped a bit, and

6% that it did not help. In secondary schools, 47% said it helped a lot, 42% said it

helped a bit, and 11% said it did not help.

Table 2. Responses of users of the scheme to whether it helped them

YES, A LOT YES, A BIT NO





There was no significant difference between primary and secondary pupils, or between

boys and girls. However, there was a significant interaction (F=6.0, p<.02), with little

sex difference in primary pupils, but with boys rating the scheme less helpful than girls,

in secondary schools.

Users were also asked if they would use the peer support scheme now if they had a

problem; responses are shown in Table 3. 75% of primary school users said yes, 23%

not sure, and 3% no. In secondary schools, 67% said yes, 22% not sure, and 11% no.

There was no significant difference between primary and secondary users, or between

boys and girls.

Table 3. Responses of users of the scheme to whether they would use it again

YES NOT SURE NO

33





Impact on the trained pupils

The views of the staff and the pupils themselves were entirely positive about the impact

of the training and peer support work had had on individuals. The most common

statements from senior staff and coordinators were:

• Pupils are more self confident

• They feel able to speak out

• They are empowered and involved in the school

• Pupils have high level transferable skills

• They are better at making friends – they know how to approach others

• Low esteem pupils have particularly benefited

• Their interpersonal skills have improved

• They have a sense of responsibility and achievement.

Several head teachers gave anecdotal evidence about the positive effect on those pupils

who had been targeted for training because of their own behaviour.

Another head teacher, who was also the school assessment coordinator, believed that the

pupils’ ability, attitude and attainment have improved and is hoping for the evidence

when the SATs results come out.

There were very few negative views expressed by staff. In one school the trained group

did not ‘gel’ and there was domination by a very bossy and competitive group of girls.

The regional coordinator did some further training with this group.

34

The view of pupils echoed the positive points made by the staff. Some were convinced

that their academic work had improved but the majority less so. All appreciated that

their interpersonal skills had been improved and they frequently referred to being more

open minded. One primary school boy said:

“What we have learned is like a habit now. We feel responsible for other

people and we can’t just switch it off.”

His friend added:

“We are sometimes better than the teachers at dealing with things.”

In response to a specific question on whether the scheme in which they were trained

works well, 74% of primary and 60% of secondary pupils stated the peer support scheme

had worked well, and 23% of primary and 40% of secondary pupils that it worked a bit;

2% of the trained pupils in primary, and none in secondary, felt it had not worked well.

Impact on specific issues including levels of bullying

In the schools where the scheme has been running for a few months up to a number of

years, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of improvement in the following areas:

• Reduction in friendship problems

• The number of ‘petty’ incidents reported to staff has dropped

• The school feeling safer for pupils

• Vulnerable and lonely pupils are spotted earlier and supported

• The playground is pleasanter

• There are fewer complaints about pupil behaviour from lunchtime supervisors

• Learning time in the afternoon is not now lost in following up lunchtime

incidents.

Thus, the peer support activities do much more than tackle bullying or protect victims of

bullying. Pupils we spoke to gave many examples of times when they have helped

individual pupils. The range of issues/problems included making friends, falling out with

35

friends, problems with teachers, homework, illness in the family, sleep problems,

aggressive behaviour and coping with older pupils. However, a fair number of these

issues are related to bullying.

The schemes which focus entirely on peer mentors working with younger tutor groups

and running group activities, have by definition limited direct impact on issues such as

bullying.

Many schools indicated that they wished they had some baseline data on incidents and

had kept records since the scheme started so that they could have some ‘hard’ evidence

of impact. A number of schools indicated their intention to devise a system for doing just

that.

An important minority of schools were able to provide some sort of statistical data

relating to pupil behaviour and the reduction in incidents.

One school which uses parental surveys on a regular basis found that 39% of

parents believed that school was safer for their child compared to the figure of

30% prior to the playground scheme starting.

A primary school keeps a major incident log book. In the 6 months prior to the

scheme starting there were 7 pages of incidents. In the last 6 months since the

scheme was resurrected there is 1 page of incidents. The same school has seen a

reduction in exclusions from 15 to 1.

The head of the Infant section of a primary school used to keep a log of lunchtime

incidents. She no longer does so because they are so rare.

A primary school keeps a red book for incidents and letters to parents. There are

now fewer incidents logged. (No quantifiable data available to us).

Some schools are less confident about the reduction in bullying incidents but are

convinced that the incidents are dealt with more effectively.

36

Many primary pupils felt that the playgrounds were better and safer places but again this

often coincided with more structured playground activities and the improvement could

not be solely attributable to the CHIPS scheme.

Other pupils were not convinced that bullying had decreased but as one girl explained:

“The scheme is to support the victims not deal with the bullies.”

Nevertheless the anecdotal evidence is strong, especially from primary schools. It must

be rare for a teacher to admit that:

“It’s almost a pleasure to do playtime duty.”

Responses as to whether the peer support schemes help to prevent bullying in school, are

shown in Table 4. Opinion is divided. Overall, 52% of staff and 43% of pupils felt the

scheme was helping to stop bullying, and roughly 45% of all participants were unsure.

Table 4. Percentages saying that the peer support scheme is helping to stop bullying in

school

YES NOT SURE NO





Primary Staff: Male 79 21 0

Primary Staff: Female 43 54 3

Secondary Staff 57 40 2

Taking the three response possibilities as a scale, we found that both primary school

pupils and staff felt the scheme was having a significantly better effect on stopping

bullying, than pupils or staff in secondary schools (F = 16.0, p<0.001). Males generally

tended to be less positive than females, with the exception of male primary school staff

who felt the scheme was particularly effective at preventing bullying (however their

37

number was relatively low, n=14). More staff think the scheme helps to stop bullying

than pupils (F = 16.0, p<0.001).

Users of the scheme felt it was having a significantly better effect on stopping bullying

(58% yes, 35% unsure, 8% no), than non-users (38% yes, 50% unsure, 12% no), (F =

22.9, p<0.001).

In sum, opinion and evidence is divided as to the extent to which the CHIPS activities

help to stop bullying. It is probably fair to say that it definitely helps in individual cases;

and that in a broader sense, it helps children with friendships and conflict resolution, and

creates a school climate in which bullying should be less likely. The outcomes of Chips

work are wider than just reducing bullying. Equally, a school anti-bullying policy

certainly needs more than just CHIPS work, to be effective.

ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE SCHEMES

Accommodation

Some primary schools had difficulty in providing the necessary space for training when

the school was in session. In secondary schools there is a real shortage of

accommodation for lunchtime activity clubs and quiet places for vulnerable pupils and

appropriate rooms for one to one mentoring, which are discreetly situated.

Time and Funding

Several coordinators mentioned lack of time within their existing role to fully support the

trained pupils and have regular meetings with them. Most schools did not budget for

some of the related peer mentoring activities such as lunchtime activity clubs and

furnishing rooms. A very successful scheme is in a school which has a business manager

who is very involved with the scheme and has accessed external funding.

38

Relationship to other Pupil Support Schemes and Supervision

Lunchtime supervisors are not always as fully informed, trained and involved in

playground schemes and this can cause tension between the trained pupils and the

lunchtime staff.

There can be a real tension between the prefect system in secondary schools and the peer

mentoring scheme where the two are not coherent and complimentary.

Clarity of role

The role of trained pupils needs to be well understood by staff and other pupils, as well

as by the trained pupils themselves. Clarity and coherence of role is sometimes lacking

where there are other pupil support services such as student counsellors and home/school

liaison staff alongside a peer mentoring scheme.

There were problems about role in two secondary schools that used trained pupils in

younger year tutor groups. Not all tutors were aware of what they had been trained for,

so sometimes pupils were given just administrative or routine roles. In one school the

trained pupils did say that it was quite common that the tutor did not need them, or they

were ‘running errands’, especially by the second term.

Training of Pupils and Scheme Implementation

Evidence suggests that timing is crucial. Where there is a significant gap between the

training and the launch of the scheme (other then a school holiday) there is a danger that

the scheme will falter. It is important to have everything in place before the scheme

starts. For example planning ahead to order badges, bibs or hats and ensuring that any

accommodation is ready and equipped.

Continuity

39

There are three aspects that need consideration:

Staffing continuity: Several schools we visited were about to lose their

coordinator or had already done so and new staff were in place. Succession

planning and an effective handover are essential. Schools’ view is that over-

reliance of the scheme on a single person can lead to difficulties

Maintaining the service to pupils: Succession planning to ensure that new pupils

are trained and benefit from the experience of the existing peer supporters is

essential if there is not to be a gap in the service. Schools will need to contact

regional coordinators well in advance of required training dates to book them.

Cross phase continuity: This has already been referred to in the report. It is an

unfortunate waste of skills and experience if transition planning from primary to

secondary schools is unable to build on the trained pupils primary experience.

EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

There are certainly elements of good practice to be drawn from some schools. The full

address and contact details can be found in the appendix. (One school only, All Souls, is

not mentioned, as it was not visited although it supplied questionnaires. A number of the

schools have several good features in common. Where only one feature is mentioned, it

should not be assumed that this is the only good practice).

PRIMARY & MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Allerton Bywater Primary School, West Yorkshire.

There is a rigorous application and interview selection process. Buddies are to play a

major role in the development of play facilities. The Learning Mentor is a very pro-

active coordinator.

All Saints C. of E. Primary School, Halifax.

The scheme is just one of several opportunities for pupils to take responsibility.

40

Trained pupils are involved in escorting other pupils to the off-site dining room.

The trained pupils have the capacity to give awards to other pupils for good behaviour

and friendliness to others at playtimes and lunchtimes.

Bushfield Middle School, Milton Keynes

There is a weekly meeting between the trained pupils and the coordinator. A short

training focussed activity forms a part of each meeting.

Chapel-Allerton Primary School, Leeds.

This is a well established scheme within a whole school philosophy of pupils taking

responsibility for others, which has expanded into the trained pupils supporting learning

in the homework club and doing reception work. The Head Teacher intends to monitor

the trained pupils to judge any impact on their attainment.

Eaves Primary School, Merseyside.

The Friendship Bench in the playground works well in this school.

Harthill Primary School, Notts.

The scheme has just been implemented but got off to a smooth start due to effective

planning and communications. The scheme is part of the development of pupil

empowerment and links with the well established school council.

Kippax North Primary School, Leeds.

The scheme links with the school council and with the PSHCE curriculum.

Trained pupils help organise games activities for the younger children.

Micklefield Primary School, Leeds.

41

The scheme is part of helping pupils to play well and many playground activities have

been introduced.

Milefield Primary School, Barnsley.

The scheme has been reinvigorated by the new head teacher. The coordinator is a

member of the school administration staff. There are formal links with the school

council by means of a Befriender’s representative.

Robin’s Lane Primary School, Merseyside.

The scheme is well established with trained pupils from every class. Trained pupils

report on their activities to their class members. Future plans intend to involve the

trained pupils in playground improvements.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Flegg High School, Norfolk.

Peer Mentoring is well established and embedded into the whole school philosophy.

All year groups are involved (12-16) and a gender balance has been achieved.

The school is a regional training centre for peer mentoring, run by the pupils.

Howard of Effingham School, Surrey.

Peer Mentors are involved in the induction of new pupils.

Humphrey Perkins High School (11-14) Leicestershire.

There is a rigorous selection process with references required from peers, parents and

form teachers. Trained pupils have designed an information leaflet about the service.

Prompt sheets (cartoons, word lists & pictures) are available to help pupils with a

problem to express their feelings.

Jewish Free School, London.

42

Two or three Buddies are attached to form tutor groups. Weekly surgeries are held with

appropriate recording of activities.

Oakham School, York.

The scheme is not yet up and running but a gender balance has been achieved with the

trained Year 11 pupils.

Plant Hill High School, Manchester.

There is a robust application and interview procedure. At lunchtimes the activities room

for vulnerable pupils is well attended.

Preston Manor School, Middlesex.

The scheme involves individual mentoring of pupils in Years 7, 8, 9 and sometime 10, by

the Year 12 pupils, on a weekly basis in designated spaces. There are good monitoring

and recording procedures in place using ICT. Some Peer Mentors are voted in to have a

more coordinating role in a large (c.50) group.

The Ravensbourne School, Kent.

Early days for the scheme but there are plans to involve primary schools in identifying

pupils with the potential to be trained in the ‘Big Brothers and Sisters’ scheme.

Woodlands School, Essex.

Pupils wishing for support from a peer mentor can use the school intranet to access the

service.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our general impression of the work of the CHIPS programmes was favourable, and that

it provides ‘value for money’. The schemes are varied, but are very generally seen

positively by both staff and pupils, in primary and secondary schools. The money spent

on CHIPS mainly goes on training, and this is highly praised. In many schools,

43

motivated and dedicated staff have used the CHIPS support in innovative and

imaginative ways. Some schools provide models of good practice in a variety of

respects.

Generally, there is no doubt that the training, and experience of peer support, benefits

those trained. It is also clear that individual pupils have benefited from receiving peer

support. Many staff and pupils (about half) also think that it has helped reduce bullying;

although quantitative evidence in this respect is largely lacking. The CHIPS work does

more than help reduce bullying; but equally, anti-bullying work certainly needs to do

more than rely on CHIPS and peer support, helpful though this may be.

We believe that the general success and positive evaluation of the CHIPS schemes in

schools, warrants continuing and indeed enhanced support. However, we do also believe

that improvements can be made to aspects of the training, supervision and operation of

the schemes. In some schools, difficulties were not being addressed thoroughly enough,

and some schemes fell short of achieving their full potential. Good practice needs to be

disseminated more widely, and evaluation must be taken more seriously and done more

systematically. We make some specific recommendations for ChildLine, and for

schools.

For ChildLine

• The capacity of the Regional Coordinators needs to be increased. If funding

allows this to happen we would recommend smaller regions in order to maximise

time spent in schools and thus meet the likely increase in demand.

• Consideration should be given to the establishing of regional training centres for

secondary schools, based in a school and modelled on the Flegg High School,

Norfolk.

• Pyrimadal organization of schools in local clusters could increase liaison between

primary and secondary schools, to mutual benefit.

44

• Schools need to be made more aware of the possibilities of ChildLine top-up and

more advanced training as the initial schemes become established and ready for

further development; a brochure on this could be helpful.

• A checklist of good practice or of issues to be addressed could be developed, to

help trainers and schools optimize their peer support scheme.

• With increased capacity ChildLine could play a greater role in

developing networks of schools for mutual support and the sharing of

good practice

fostering the peer support schemes across the primary/secondary

transition

supporting schools in more effective communication of the scheme to all

the school community including governors and lunchtime supervisors

advising schools on the effective monitoring of the scheme’s impact, on

levels of aggression and bullying and indeed on other indicators such as

perceived school safety, and school climate. We would recommend that

any increased funding is conditional upon such monitoring being

instituted on a regular basis.

For Schools

PLANNING:

• Ensure that the scheme is embedded within the overall philosophy and aims of

the school, and engages children at an appropriate level. Detailed schemes

cannot be ‘parachuted in’ from other schools, although schools can consider good

practice elsewhere and also learn from others’ mistakes.

• Ensure that the Head Teacher as well as other members of the school leadership

team have an active role in supporting the scheme.

• Plan well ahead for initial and further training if ChildLine regional coordinators

are required to be involved.

• Make use of opportunities for top-up training and more advanced training. This

should be made more use of than at present, and be specific to the needs at a

school.

45

ESTABLISHING THE SCHEME:

• Ensure that all members of the school community are aware of the scheme and

understand the role of the trained pupils and how all staff can support and

enhance the work.

• Wherever possible address the gender balance of the trained pupils, for example

through the selection process.

• Ensure that the trained pupils perform the roles for which they have been trained,

minimising ‘administrative’ and ‘routine’ duties as much as possible (a danger if

peer mentors are assigned to tutor groups).

SUPERVISION:

• Ensure that the scheme coordinator has the capacity (time, resources, and

authority) to support the trained pupils and lead on further development of the

scheme.

• Maintain regular supervisory meetings (consider a tiered system for large

numbers of peer mentors in secondary school); take opportunities to continue

training, in these.

• Get feedback from mentors at supervisory meetings or (secondary schools)

through a report system, but keep it simple.

MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING

• Consider ways of working with and sharing issues and good practice across

networks of same-phase schools; and across the primary/secondary phases where

this is feasible.

• Look for ways of monitoring the impact of the scheme against clear criteria.

46

Appendix A: Schools taking part in this study

Primary

Milefield Primary School, Engine Lane, Grimethorpe, Barnsley, S72 7BH Tel: 01226 710329 Contact: Sue King

Primary Kippax North Infants &Juniors, Brexdale Avenue, Kippax Leeds LS25 7EJ Tel: 0113 286 9427 Contact: Catherine Inhester

Primary Chapel Allerton Primary School, Harrogate Road, Leeds LS7 3PD Tel: 0113 262 4851 Contact: Lorna Burkoff

Primary Allerton Bywater Primary Leeds Road, Allerton Bywater, Castleford, West Yorkshire WF10 2DR Tel: 01977 554 275 Contact: Debbie Olroyd

Primary Harthill Primary, Union Street, Harthill, Sheffield S26 7YH Tel: 01909 770291 Contact: Jane Skepper

Primary All Saints C of E Junior &Infants Dudwell Lane, Halifax HX3 0SD Tel: 01422 367140 Contact: Lesley Bigham

Primary Micklefield Primary School Great North Road, Micklefield, Leeds LS25 4AQ Tel: 0113 214 6818 Contact: Lisa Beaston

Primary All Souls RC Primary School, Kintyre Avenue, Weaste, Salford M5 2NR Tel: 0161 736 3841 Contact: Julie Bainbridge *questionnaires only, no visit

Primary Eaves Primary School, Eaves Lane, Marshalls Cross, St. Helens, Merseyside WA9 3UB Tel: 01744 812700 Contact: Jayne Griffiths

Primary Robins Lane Primary School Robins Lane, St. Helens, Merseyside WA9 3NF Tel: 01744 678503 Contact: Julia Nawrocka

Middle (Yrs 4-7)

Bushfield Middle School, Moon street, Wolverton, Milton Keynes MK12 5JG Tel: 01908 314876 Contact: Jenny Seaton

Middle (Yrs 7-9)

Humphrey Perkins High School, Cotes Road, Barrow-on-Soar, Leics LE12 8JS Tel: 01509 812385 Contact: Nick Phillips

Secondary Plant Hill School, Plant Hill Road, Higher Blackley, Manchester M9 0WQ Tel: 0161 740 1831

47

Contact: Helen Crook Secondary Flegg High School,

Somerton Road, Martham, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR29 4QD Tel: 01493 740349 Contact: Mike Ward

Secondary Woodlands School, Takely End, Basildon, Essex SS16 5BA Tel: 01268 282146 Contact Gabi Dieu De Belfontaine

Secondary Jewish Free School, The Mall, Kenton, Harrow HA3 9TE Tel: 020 8206 3100 Contact: Esther Kritz

Secondary Preston Manor School, Carlton Avenue East, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 8NA Tel: 020 8385 4040 Contact: Nicky Rau

Secondary The Ravensbourne School, Hayes Lane, Bromley, BR2 9EH Tel: 020 8460 0083 Contact: Bryn Jones

Secondary Howard of Effingham School, Lower Road, Effingham, Surrey KT24 5JR Tel: 01372 453694 Contact: Graham Adams

Secondary Oaklands School Cornlands Road, Acomb, York YO24 3DX Tel: 01904782727 Contact: Jan McKay *visit only, no questionnaires

48

APPENDIX B:

INTERVIEW FORMAT with HEAD TEACHER and CHIPS COORDINATOR

We have been asked by DfES to do an evaluation of the CHIPS scheme

[AIMS: To provide an evaluation of the CHIPS programme, the impact it has made, ways in which good practice may be shared, and ways in which CHIPS might be improved].

To start with, could you summarise your history of involvement with the CHIPS scheme –

when was contact first made, and why?

what has been the sequence of events and activities since then? [awareness raising, peer support, other anti-bullying work, resources]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FOR INTERVIEW WITH CHIPS COORDINATOR] What kinds of supervision have the pupils had in their work? What have the pupils gained from the training? How has it affected their personal development? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What sort of impact has CHIPS work had on awareness of bullying and child protection issues in the school? What sort of evidence do you have? What sort of impact has CHIPS work had on rates of bullying in the school? What sort of evidence do you have? Summarizing then, what have been the best things about the CHIPS work here? What elements of best practice would be useful for other schools to consider? And summarizing again, what have been difficulties or drawbacks? If you were doing this again what changes would you make? [FOR HEAD TEACHER] We will arrange that you get a copy of our Final report (will also be available via website). Is it OK if your school is acknowledged by name, in the Appendix?

49

If appropriate, would you be willing to be listed as a contact for good practice in some named respect?

50

APPENDIX C: Questionnaires for pupils and staff.

These questionnaires are supplemented by the totals for each response choice.

(a) Pupil questionnaire: Primary schools

(b) Pupil questionnaire: Secondary schools

(c) Staff questionnaire: Primary and secondary schools

51

PEER SUPPORT IN PRIMARY SCHOOL: PUPIL QUESTIONNAIRE Name of school: Date: These are some questions about the Buddies/Befrienders scheme in your school.

Please don’t write your name down - we just want to know what you and others

really think. Lots of schools are answering these questions. Your Year Group: You are a GIRL 226 BOY 222 1 Do you know that there are Buddies/Befrienders in your school? YES 436 NO 19 2 Would you know how to use Buddies/Befrienders for yourself or a friend? YES 378 NO 76 3 Do you know anybody who has used Buddies/Befrienders? YES 243 NO 211 4 Do you think it is a good idea to have Buddies/Befrienders in school? YES 357 NOT SURE 87 NO 8 5 Do you think Buddies/Befrienders is helping to stop bullying in school? YES 240 NOT SURE 178 NO 36 6 Have YOU ever used Buddies/Befrienders in school? NO 306 YES, ONCE 99 YES, MORE THAN ONCE 50

If you ticked NO, please turn over and go t o question 9 where is, now ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you ticked YES, 7 Did using Buddies/Befrienders help you? YES, A LOT 64 YES, A BIT 72 NO 9

52

8 Would you use Buddies/Befrienders now if you had a problem? YES 108 NOT SURE 33 NO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Have you been trained in any way in Buddies/Befrienders? YES 135 NO 320

If you ticked NO, please go to 13 *LAST QUESTION now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you ticked YES, 10 What have you done? Been a Buddy 54 Been a Befriender 72 Helped with telling people about it or in some other way 6 11 Was the training you had

VERY USEFUL 102 A BIT USEFUL 23 NOT VERY USEFUL 6 12 Do you think Buddies/Befrienders WORKS WELL 96 WORKS A BIT 30 DOES NOT WORK WELL 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13 *LAST QUESTION If you want to write anything more about Buddies/Befrienders you can do it here: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! Please put your questionnaire in the large envelope marked ‘Peer Support Evaluation’.

53

PEER SUPPORT IN SECONDARY SCHOOL: PUPIL

QUESTIONNAIRE Name of school: Date: This is a short questionnaire about the Peer Support scheme in your school. Please

don’t write your name on this questionnaire. Your responses are anonymous and we

want to know what you and others really think. This is part of a national survey to

find out how schemes like this are working. Your Year Group: You are a GIRL 205 BOY 174 1 Do you know that there is a Peer Support system in your school? YES 326 NO 53 Can you briefly describe it? 2 Would you know how to use it for yourself or a friend? YES 238 NO 140 3 Do you know anybody who has used it? YES 195 NO 184 4 Do you think it is a good idea to have this Peer Support scheme in school? YES 239 NOT SURE 121 NO 19 5 Do you think this Peer Support scheme is helping to stop bullying in school? YES 116 NOT SURE 206 NO 56

54

Please write more on how well the Peer Support scheme is working generally, if you wish: 6 Have YOU ever used the Peer Support scheme in school? NO 314 YES, ONCE 33 YES, MORE THAN ONCE 32

If you ticked NO, please go to question 9 where is, now ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you ticked YES, 7 Did using the Peer Support scheme help you? YES, A LOT 30 YES, A BIT 27 NO 7 8 Would you use it now if you had a problem? YES 43 NOT SURE 14 NO 7 Do you have any other comments on your use of the Peer Support scheme? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 Have you been trained in any way on the Peer Support scheme? YES 43 NO 336

55

If you ticked NO, please go to 15*LAST QUESTION now on the back page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you ticked YES, 10 What kind of role have you had in the scheme? Buddy 3 Befriender 0 Peer Supporter 38 Helping with administering the scheme 0 Other 1 11 Was the training you had

VERY USEFUL 30 A BIT USEFUL 9 NOT VERY USEFUL 0 12 Do you think the Peer Support scheme WORKS WELL 24 WORKS A BIT 16 DOES NOT WORK WELL 0 13 Have you ever read CHIPS CHAT? YES 19 NO 21 14 If so, was CHIPS CHAT helpful to you? YES, A LOT 8 YES, A BIT 10 NO 1 Do you have any other comments on your work in the Peer Support scheme, or on any further training you have had in this area, e.g. with ChildLine? PLEASE TURN OVER

56

15 *LAST QUESTION [FOR EVERYONE] Please write any further comments you may have on how the Peer Support scheme works in this school, and what you would recommend to another school: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! Your questionnaire can be put in a large envelope marked ‘Peer Support Evaluation’ which your class or form teacher will take to the school office for collection.

57

PEER SUPPORT IN SCHOOL: STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE Name of school: Date:

This is a very short questionnaire about the Buddies/Befrienders/Peer Support scheme in your school. It is part of an independent evaluation being conducted through Goldsmiths College, University of London, for the DfES. The aim is to provide an evaluation of the CHIPS programme, the impact it has made, ways in which good practice may be shared, and ways in which CHIPS might be improved. Please don’t write your name on this questionnaire. Your responses are anonymous. We want to know what you and others really think. Your role in school: CLASS or FORM TEACHER HEAD OF YEAR LUNCHTIME SUPERVISOR

LEARNING MENTOR OTHER (specify)

You are FEMALE 166 MALE 37 Do you know there is a Buddies/Befrienders/Peer Support system in your school? YES 197 NO 7 Can you briefly describe it? Would you know how to recommend a pupil to use it? YES 176 NO 27 Do you know any pupil who has used it? YES 141 NO 61 Do you think it is a good idea to have this Peer Support scheme in school? YES 191 NOT SURE 13 NO 0 Do you think this Peer Support scheme is helping to stop bullying in school? YES 106 NOT SURE 92 NO 5

PLEASE TURN OVER

58

Please write more on how well the Peer Support scheme is working generally, any reservations you might have about it, and what you would recommend to another school: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! PLEASE RETURN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, SEALED IN THE ATTACHED ENVELOPE MARKED ‘CHIPS EVALUATION’, TO THE SCHOOL OFFICE

59

PUPIL DISCUSSION GROUPS

With pupils who have been trained by CHIPS in peer support (have a certificate) Aim for one group of 6 to 8 pupils (exceptionally up to 10; or two groups) Need quiet room to have the group, for up to 40 minutes INTRODUCTION Hello, I am Peter Smith/Denise Watson. I am here to find out about the work of CHIPS – Children in Partnership with Schools, run by ChildLine. I think you all have been trained by CHIPS and have a certificate, is that right? I’m here to find out how the CHIPS schemes are working in schools. I am going to help write a report for the Government and for ChildLine, to suggest what is working well, what is not working so well, and make suggestions as to how the work can be made even more effective. So I would like you to discuss among yourselves about how CHIPS and the peer support scheme works in your school. Whatever you say will be confidential, in the sense that I won’t mention any names, and any report will be written in general terms about all the schools we visit. Also, I would prefer that you don’t actually mention the names of any pupil or teacher – just how things are working. OK? To get things going, perhaps each of you could briefly tell me your name and year group, and what training you had, and how long ago, and what you do now in the Buddies/Befriender/Peer Support scheme? [round of pupils] Thanks. Well, maybe now you can tell me more about how the scheme works …… Are there other schemes ….? Has your work on the scheme been supervised? How? What have you personally learnt from being on the scheme? What are the things that really work well? What would you recommend to other schools? What are the things that could be improved, that could have been done better? What would you say to someone who is thinking of becoming a Buddy/Befriender/Peer Supporter? THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Copies of this publication can be obtained from:

DfES PublicationsP.O. Box 5050Sherwood ParkAnnesleyNottinghamNG15 0DJ

Tel: 0845 60 222 60Fax: 0845 60 333 60Minicom: 0845 60 555 60On-line: www.dfespublications.gov.uk

© Goldsmiths College, University of London 2004

Produced by the Department for Education and Skills

ISBN 1 84478 302 2Ref No: RR570

www.dfes.go.uk/research

(CHIPS) Programme

Documents

Transcript of (CHIPS) Programme