|
|
Center for Conflict Resolution in the Cleveland Schools : Elementary School Conflict Resolution Initiative ABSTRACT Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Program Overview: A team of 25 - 30 elementary students and one or two adult advisors from each project school received program development assistance and an intensive three-day peer mediation training led by CCR. Trainers were diverse youth who had recently graduated from high school in Cleveland. Peer mediators were to be children whose social leadership potential had been exhibited in negative and/or positive ways, and who were representative of the school’s entire racial, cultural, and gender populations. These elementary student mediator teams, grades 3-5, were guided to develop conflict resolution and mediation skills. The program emphasized both the creation of peer mediation services in each school and the engagement of the young student trainees as peer leaders, responsible for spreading nonviolent conflict management knowledge and practice throughout their school communities. Conflict Management Program Advisors in each school had three main responsibilities:
This same basic training and program development package was given to a wide range of elementary schools in one city school district. Because of the Center for Conflict Resolution’s emphasis on empowerment of diverse students and responsiveness to local contexts, the programs took different forms in the various elementary schools. CCR provided guidelines, resources, and professional development regarding basic principles and options for implementing peer mediation programs in the schools. Then, authority was delegated to the program advisors, conflict manager teams, and other staff at each school, to interpret and adapt the program to their own needs and priorities. Research Method: Extensive qualitative and quantitative information was collected regarding the character and effectiveness of Center for Conflict Resolution peer mediation training and program development at twenty elementary schools in one large urban school system, during the two school years 1997-99. The study focused on the development, institutionalization, and consequences of mediation programs for whole schools, and in particular for diverse grade 3-5 students. Qualitative evidence includes observations and interviews with administrators, program advisors, other teachers, peer mediators, and other students at each school at the ends of years one and two. Site visits were supplemented by interviews and meetings with program trainers and advisors throughout 1997-99. Quantitative evidence includes a ‘Students’ Attitudes About Conflict’ survey regarding conflict management understanding and attitudes, completed by all grade 3-5 students in the 20 main project schools before and after one year of program implementation (along with 8 additional project schools and 6 comparison schools in the second year only). Survey data were analyzed by school and by major subgroups within schools (grade level, gender, and whether or not a student was a mediator). Each grade’s results (pre-test) were compared with those of comparable students in the same grade (post-test) 12 months later. Additional quantitative data assess disciplinary suspension rates and standardized achievement test results at each school, before and after the year of program implementation. Research RESULTS: The Center for Conflict Resolution’s elementary conflict management program showed positive results on the Student Attitudes About Conflict (SAAC) survey after one year of implementation. Post-test scores in schools that implemented the program were significantly higher than pre-test scores, over all, on the survey taken as a whole (+0.09 points average on a 5-point scale, significant statistically at p < 0.01) and on three of four thematic sub-scales. The SAAC survey results reflect school-level improvements in students’ capacities and willingness to handle effectively both interpersonal relationships and school activities. Students’ understanding of and capacity to handle conflict: Students’ understanding and inclination toward nonviolent conflict resolution increased significantly (+ 0.10), as did students’ assessment of their own capacity to handle conflicts in interactions with peers (+ 0.08). This indicates that, on average, the understandings and feelings of efficacy to handle conflict increased in the grade 3-5 student populations of CCR project schools. Student engagement and school climate: Students’ attitudes toward attending and participating in school improved significantly (+ 0.11). This indicates that the existence of CCR peer mediation programs is associated with students’ increased comfort with engaging in school activity. Although the average pre-post difference was positive (+0.06) on the fourth thematic sub-scale, school climate, one year of program implementation and institutionalization had progressed further (as measured by qualitative data) had statistically stronger school climate results than other schools in the project. This suggests that when CCR peer mediation programs achieve full implementation, school climates will indeed be improved. Grade level differences: Grade 3’s (+0.13) and grade 5’s (+0.12) over-all SAAC score increases were stronger than grade 4’s (+0.06). The reason for this is that many grade 4 students in Cleveland were denied opportunities to participate fully in this program by teachers or principals, on the mistaken assumption that such activity would be detrimental to their Ohio Proficiency Test results (see below). In the schools where grade 4 students were allowed to participate as actively as other students, their results were equivalent to other grades. Gender differences: Although the results of the CCR program were positive over all for the average student, most score improvements were considerably more positive for boys than for girls. This is particularly true for the Peer Relations scale. Girls’ average pre-test SAAC scores were significantly higher than boys’ (over 3.5 compared with about 3.3 on the 5-point scale), and showed little improvement during the project. The CCR peer mediation program apparently helped the average boy, in effect, to ‘catch up’ to the average girl in their attitudes and understandings for managing conflict. The variation among boys’ scores also was higher than girls’. The relatively uneven student perceptions of school climate at many project schools, among most girls and also among many boys, suggest that peer mediation (as implemented by CCR) may be insufficient to adequately reduce the incidence of harassment, social exclusion, or bullying (problems that tend to disproportionately hurt girls, newcomers, and lower-status students). Between-school differences: The quantitative and qualitative data show tremendous between-school differences in program implementation and results. These differences among schools’ results were often larger than the differences among thematic sub-scales in aggregated whole-project data. This indicates that the individual school’s interpretation, implementation, and institutionalization of the peer mediation program is at least as important as the program model itself in determining program effectiveness. Suspension rates: Punishment for violent behavior (suspensions) were considerably reduced in CCR project schools, compared to the average district elementary school, during the project period. While Cleveland’s over-all average elementary school suspension rate went up about 2%, suspension rates in the main CCR project schools went down an average of 25%. However, the between-school variation was high enough to prevent statistical significance on this variable, except slightly in the case of CCR schools trained in the fall (partly because CCR schools were also included in the district averages). This indicates that peer mediation does provide a meaningful alternative to suspension, by resolving problems (rather than simply postponing or punishing) and by helping children prone to fighting or arguing to learn alternative ways of handling their conflicts. Academic Achievement: Pass rates on the grade 4 Ohio Proficiency Tests of citizenship and reading achievement increased in CCR project schools considerably more than the district average. This suggests that CCR’s peer mediation program is associated with increases in students’ academically-relevant skills and their comfort in school — perhaps because it helps them to resolve personal problems so they can focus on learning. Thus students’ time ‘away’ from regular academics to practice conflict resolution can be an academic advantage, not a disadvantage. Training and CCR Staff Services: Virtually all school-based conflict management program advisors, principals, other school staff , and volunteers who were involved expressed remarkably unanimous approval of the CCR mediation training. Individual evaluations of student mediators’ skills by CCR staff at the end of each training, and by school-based advisors and teachers, indicate that nearly all the students developed fair or good proficiency in the steps and underlying conflict management skills of peer mediation, after only three days of training. Staff members reported improvements in self-discipline, attitude toward school, and communication/ conflict management skills, particularly among the mediators whom they had considered to be less successful students or ‘negative leaders.’ The CCR trainers were particularly successful:
It is apparent from program results that many of the student mediators CCR trained were strong enough to, in turn, influence the understandings and openness of many peers to nonviolent conflict management options. The primary areas needing improvement in the CCR training work were to clarify the differences between peer mediation and these traditional blame-oriented approaches to conflict, and to strengthen the later problem-solving phases of mediation. School-Site Program Development: In fifteen of the twenty main project schools, many or most grade 3-5 students (orally assessed in their classrooms) showed significant familiarity with the purpose and process of peer mediation, after one year of program implementation. In five of these schools, significant proportions of grade 1 and 2 students also were well-informed about mediation. Clearly these programs had developed considerably beyond the original small cadres of mediators that were directly trained by CCR. It is an indication of the CCR program’s popularity that over 70% of the grade 3-5 students (not already peer mediators) indicated on surveys that they would like to be peer mediators. However, not every school successfully implemented peer mediation: in one or two of the original twenty project schools, essentially no peer mediation took place, beyond the training and a few poorly-attended meetings. In another eight schools, the program did not develop much in the second year, which suggests that their programs were not sustainably institutionalized. The three most crucial elements of administrator and staff support for peer mediation were:
Program Institutionalization: To make peer mediation a viable alternative in the school, program advisors had to facilitate program-related activities during the already-busy school day – when students, staff, and others were present. Advisors were also essential links to the professional teaching staff, in clarifying and enhancing links between conflict management, mediation, and academic work. Most advisors handled this complex responsibility well, especially where supported by administration (in concrete ways, such as regular program meeting time during school). However, many advisors emphasized in interviews the scarcity of time, especially flexible time during school hours, with which to work with the conflict management program. Co-advisors or conflict management support committees seemed to help with this problem in some schools. Program Interpretation: Implicit and explicit interpretations of the peer mediation program by the individuals at each school made an immense difference in the character, size, effectiveness, and sustainability of the conflict management initiatives. The most important of those interpretative differences will be discussed below. Confidentiality, Student Autonomy, and Monitoring of Mediation:What makes peer mediation an effective alternative is that students assist other students, without deferring to adults. At the same time, adults in school are fundamentally responsible for children’s safety. When program advisors in some schools insisted on being present or involved during students’ mediation sessions, program development was limited by the advisor’s scarce time and by the disinclination of some students to have adults know their business. Occasionally adults used paper records and aural monitoring in ways that clearly violated students’ confidentiality and stifled their interest in using the mediation option. However, programs were also strengthened by the accessibility of advisors – responsible adults to whom mediators could turn for help or to debrief mediation sessions. This adult support was particularly essential for keeping mediators with weaker mediation skills, academic achievement, peer status, or self-management skills in the program. In addition, advisor monitoring sometimes helped to keep conflict managers from misusing their power (on very rare occasions, mediators were monitored so little that a few abused their authority nearly to the extent of bullying other students). Thus, in practice, mediation sessions were rarely absolutely confidential in these elementary school contexts. Too little adult involvement risked putting mediators or their clients in dangerous situations, while too much (or excessively directive) adult involvement impeded students from taking full advantage of peer mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution. Conflict Managers’ Roles: Participants sometimes unconsciously imitated traditional patterns of monitoring and advising that contradicted the principles of peer mediation. In about a third of the Elementary School Initiative sites, to varying degrees, student mediators sometimes acted in peer advisor, model student, or monitor roles (rather than fulfilling true peer mediator roles). Contrary to CCR program guidelines, these children were telling other children how to behave, and at times assigning blame, rather than empowering their peers to autonomously generate resolutions to their own problems. The implicit message in these monitoring-oriented approaches was that mediators were somehow ‘better’ than other students who ‘caused trouble.’ Sustaining Involvement of Diverse Student Mediators: Some schools were far more successful than others in keeping diverse students – especially those originally seen as ‘negative leaders’ and those whose first language was not English – as active and confident members of the conflict management program. The most important factor was the commitment and capacity of the program advisors to coach, support, and encourage the whole range of students (rather than allowing certain students to be excluded because of their academic difficulties or occasional disruptive behavior). Attention by advisors and other staff to on-going support and opportunities for learning was insufficient in several schools: this was detrimental to program development. In schools with regular and frequent mediator meetings, better diversity was maintained and thus mediation programs were more able to permeate their school cultures. Youth Leadership: Program Achievement and Potential: In virtually every case where they were given some support, respect, and opportunities to show what they could do, the grade 3-5 student mediators in this project met and exceeded the expectations of those around them. The enthusiastic and often surprised testimonials from formerly-skeptical teachers, administrators, peers, and parents indicate that young children can indeed help to build peaceful environments. The longer and more widely a program developed in a school, the more enthusiasm these young peacemakers generated. The positive school effects shown in this study are result from the fact that these young mediators were able to influence a great number of their peers toward nonviolent inclinations and relationships. The only serious lament I heard from peer mediators about the program was when they were not given the opportunity to be sufficiently active, to show what they could do to make their schools more safe and peaceful. This is a solvable problem: the CCR staff and many of the Elementary School Initiative Schools did demonstrate how the peacemaking leadership of diverse youth can be nurtured, channeled effectively, and enjoyed as an integral part of school operations. CONCLUSION: The results of this evaluation research project affirm that peer mediation, following the CMSD Center for Conflict Resolution training and program model, can improve elementary students’ capacity and inclination to handle conflict nonviolently, their relationships with peers, and their attachment to school. Furthermore, this program can reduce suspensions from school for violent activity and increase achievement in reading and citizenship. This study also analyzed the roles, responsibilities, and principles associated with effective program implementation and sustainability at the school level. CCR’s training and program model is sound and workable and its training and program-advisory staff have done good work with limited funding. At the same time, good training is not enough: school-based program development, and support to build equitable programs that can grow and last over time, will require strengthened commitment and clarity of purpose.
|
|
 State Home Page | OCDRCM Home |
The Commission | Updates | Useful ResourcesFor Schools | For Courts and Communities | For State and Local Governments | Write to us |
|
|
|
|
