FORMACIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA

The term ‘system’ or ‘systems’ has arisen extensively throughout the literature review. For the purposes of the present research it is now important to address what is meant by this term when discussing systems in relation to school change. The literature on systems across multiple disciplines is extensive, and this chapter will limit the discussion to how the term ‘system’ is used in relation to bullying and restorative approaches. The Oxford Dictionary states that the word ‘system’ is a noun with three meanings:

63

1. A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole.

2. A set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organised scheme or method.

3. (The system) the prevailing political or social order, especially when regarded as oppressive and intransigent.

As such, ‘system’ can mean both the whole and the interrelated or interconnected aspects that function as a network within the whole. This raises the issue of whether the whole school approach is in fact a form of system change. Although the term WSA refers to the ‘whole’, the literature on both bullying and restorative approaches suggests that researchers are indicating that a feature of the whole needs to be transformed through change which then influences the rest of the whole (i.e., policy or the staff body). This leads to a categorisation of systems: simple, complicated and complex. A simple system, such as a bike, has a few working parts interconnected with a human to create a mode of transport. Alternatively, a complicated system such as an aeroplane has a multitude of component parts working together, e.g., engine, wing, cockpit, pilot, as well as supporting other systems such as radar and navigation. The important point with both simple and complicated systems is that the outcome is repeatable and predictable. The error may be the assumption that such systems, which operate in mechanistic ways, can be used as a metaphor and applied to schools. The perception of the school as a simple system is most prominent in the YJB (2005)

evaluation; this may be due to evaluation being focused on a input-output model. The report recommends a WSA (input), followed by a series of recommendations and a range of

activities for schools to implement, e.g., for teachers, INSET21, notice boards and access to other training opportunities (2005:72). The activities are generic and the recommendations neither prioritise nor describe the interconnections between them. All of this suggests that the school is viewed as a simple system and that school implementations needs only to follow the prescription or implementation instructions for change to occur (output). The report

concludes with the following: ‘Exit Strategies - There needs to be a clear idea of how the initiative will develop, become integrated and sustain beyond the initial development on the intervention’ (2005:74). The issue of sustainability is alluded to but left inchoate from this research. However, Bonell et al, in their RCT research, recommend the WSA as an

64

appropriate change model and describe the school as a complicated system in which multiple components may come together to produce prescribed outcomes:

Interventions to promote student health modifying the whole school environment, such as learning together, are likely to be one of the most efficient ways of promoting mental health and well-being while also addressing other health harms in adolescence, because the potential to modify population level risk and their wide reach across health outcomes are likely sustainable.

(Bonell et al, 2018:2463) This research, and the speculative work of Acosta et al (2016) and Green et al (2019), suggest that the metaphor of the school as complicated system is prevalent in the RCTs. They seek repeatable outcomes from schools implementing RP, do not define the intervention or school as a system, yet all refer to restorative system change. Fortunately, Van Ness (2002)

explicitly focuses on changes to ‘the system’ in the criminal justice system and distinguishes between three types of system: a fully restorative system, a moderately restorative system, and a minimally restorative system (2002:11-13). A fully restorative system would be made up of the following components:

Meeting of the parties;

Communication between the parties; Agreement by the parties;

Apology by the offender; Restitution to the victim;

Change in the offender’s behaviour; Respect shown to all parties;

Assistance provided to any party that needs it; and inclusion of the parties.

(Van Ness, 2002:6) For Van Ness these are equally important components, and all need to be present in a fully restorative response. How restorative in character a system is depends on several features: aspiration, resources, and the level of access given, i.e., ‘is this approach offered to every person or a select few? The more people given access to the restorative approach, the more

65

restorative the system will be’ (2002:10). Thus, a fully restorative system can offer all the features described in the component list. The distinction between fully, moderately and minimal restorative systems (2002:11-13) is, for Van Ness, not based on the programmes or initiatives used but rather resides at a system level: ‘we could call a system “fully restorative” when these components are sufficiently predominant and competing values are sufficiently subordinate that the processes and outcomes are highly restorative. A system in which these values and components are less predominant will be less restorative’ (2002:7). Van Ness recognises that a restorative system will have four options for change when dealing with the incumbent system (i.e., the present criminal justice system).

As a result of thinking at a systems level regarding restorative justice Van Ness provides four models of restorative systems (2002). Firstly, a unified system, which is fully restorative and has been ‘brought about either by conversion… or replacement’ of the existing

system(ibid:16). Secondly, a dual-track model, in which criminal justice and restorative justice work side-by-side with occasional co-operation. Thirdly, a safety net model, which is a variation of the two where parts of the criminal justice model are needed when the

restorative approach cannot work (for example, where guilt is an issue). Finally, a hybrid

model ‘where parts of the system exhibit strong restorative values… and other parts reflect

criminal justice values’ (ibid:16). The four models described by Van Ness are useful for identifying system states of restorative justice as contrasted with the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the use of the term ‘system’ by Van Ness suggests a metaphor of a complicated system but one in which, with various component changes, the degree of restorative(ness) can be modified. Thus, depending on the degree of the restorative system, be that full, moderate or minimal, a system can produce particular types of outcomes with regularity. The issues of systems in restorative approaches show that, as descriptions, simple systems and complicated systems appear at the forefront when the language of systems is used. However, a third type of system is used in education: the ecosystem.

Although the term ‘ecosystem’ is closely associated with the natural science the term has been utilised since the late 1970s. The biological ecosystem, later called the social-ecological system, is often associated with the work of Bronfenbrenner and his nested model of child development which shapes the individual. This model is a description of nested systems functioning within each other. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is based on concentric circles with the child in the middle and circles of influence widening out to particular types of stakeholders who can influence the development of the child. Bronfenbrenner first introduced

66

the nested systems in 1979 with micro, meso, and macro system layers. Later, in 1994, Bronfenbrenner added the chronosystem (time).

Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystem has been used as a theoretical tool for analysis in the field of bullying (Swearer and Doll, 2001; Hong and Espelage, 2012). As a form of data analysis ecosystem methodology was used in a quantitative multi-level analysis by Merrin, Espelage and Hong (2018). From their research using a social-ecological model they concluded that, ‘prevention programmes that consider various dimensions of the social-ecological

perspective, and more specifically the family and school factors have potential to reduce bullying’ (2018:43). The idea of schools nested within systems is useful as a descriptor of a system but the limitation of the social-ecological model as a system is that it runs the risk of being a map of a complicated system, with variables able to be listed and tested similarly to features and landmarks. Knowing such features exist is useful; however, there is a significant risk that deconstruction of the system, as with Merrin, Espelage and Hong’s analysis of bullying, fails to understand the interconnectedness of an ecosystem. What is important in the work of Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological system for school change is that it attempts to describe the system from a social-biological perspective. There is a recognition that change happens at multiple points within nested layers of the system and between the layers. For example, the macro level may have a significant impact on other parts of the system. The macro or external environment in which English schools operate has undergone significant changes, and three significant features will now be explored.

4.4 The External Environment for a School: The English Educational System.