Memorandum submitted by The Support Group
Method
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 This written evidence focuses on a particular
strategy to tackle the problem of bullying in schools and calls
into question the Government's present policy on this matter.
It does not seek to define the extent and nature of bullying as
a problem, nor to consider the short and long-term effects. It
is felt that many other individuals and organisations will be
providing the Committee with this information.
1.2 This report does present the committee
with the experience and research evidence for a non-punitive response
to bullying amongst young people and in particular, highlights
the significance of one particular strategy—the Support
Group Method (SGM), previously known as the "No Blame Approach".
1.3 Barbara Maines and George Robinson started
to work together in 1984 when George was the head of a special
school in Bristol and Barbara was the educational psychologist
to the school. Their shared belief in the importance of self-esteem
and their rejection of traditional methods of behaviour management
inspired them to develop new and challenging initiatives—one
of them has been the SGM.
1.4 The report explains:
— the significant elements of the SGM
process;
— how the Government has viewed SGM
over the past decade;
— the evidence base for the Method's
success;
— the importance of new research conducted
in the summer of 2006; and
— provides some participant statements
on DVD.
1.5 There has been opposition to SGM, primarily
led by Michelle Elliot of the anti-bullying charity, Kidscape.
It is noted that in her oral evidence given to the Committee in
July, she chooses to refer to SGM as a "discredited"
approach. The very recent research (August 2006) outlined in this
document certainly does not support this statement. In fact, the
research positively endorses SGM as a successful method to be
used among the full range of possible strategies to tackling bullying
in schools.
1.6 This submission also outlines the change
in DfES policy which has led to attempts to discredit the method
since November 2005. It was previously featured positively in
publications and on the website.
1.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Bullying remains a very serious problem in most
schools yet many practitioners are not sufficiently aware or have
have not had the training needed to use many of the strategies
available to combat the problem.
There is currently very little research in the
field which would endorse the use of any particular strategy or
range of strategies, yet debate and criticism has been forthcoming
about SGM. In reality, what research there is, is very supportive
of the SGM, when it is used appropriately and correctly. Despite
this positive research, the UK Government refuses to take an evidence-based
approach to informing its policy in this area.
Recommendation One
Detailed and comprehensive research is needed
into all anti-bullying strategies to ascertain how and when they
are used in schools and which strategy is most effective in a
range of situations.
In independent research conducted over the summer,
one Local Authority commented:
"The lack of a firm evidence base to establish
what the effectiveness of punitive and non-punitive interventions
actually is, has obscured and hampered the discussion about resolving
bullying for too long and this, of course, does not serve well
the young people who are involved in bullying. This kind of research
is long overdue and may present us finally with some greater degree
of certainty in our direction on interventions".
[LA7, A Survey of Use of the Support Group
Method [or "No Blame" Approach] in England, and some
evaluation from users. August 2006]
Recommendation Two
The results of this research need to inform
DfES policy on bullying in schools with the outcome that appropriate
guidance and training is given to all who deal with these situations
across the UK.
Recommendation Three
A simple and user-friendly system should be
devised to help teachers record the frequency of bullying incidents
and to evaluate the effectiveness of how they are or are not resolved.
2. OVERVIEW:
THE SUPPORT
GROUP METHOD
IN PRACTICE
2.1 All schools are likely to have some
problem with bullying at one time or another and are of course
required by law to have an anti-bullying policy, and to use it
to reduce and prevent bullying.
The Support Group Method (SGM) originally known
as "The No Blame Approach" was devised and first used
by Barbara Maines and George Robinson in 1991. By the end of the
year it was available as a published training video and featured
in the media on programmes including "That's Life—BBC1
February 1993" and the BBC2 Anti-bullying series of Documentaries
1997.
2.2 What is the SGM and how does it work?
The method is a highly structured 7-step process
in which:
1. The target is given an opportunity
to talk privately to an adult who will act as an advocate.
2. A group of peers is convened to
include bullies, colluders, observers, friends (potential rescuers).
3. The advocate explains to the group
members her worries about the target and describes his distress.
4. She makes it clear that the group
members have been invited to help. No accusations are made and
there is no threat of punishment.
5. The members are invited to empathise
and plan actions to "make things better".
6. The members are praised and thanked
for their cooperation and a follow up meeting is arranged.
7. At the follow up meeting, the group
members are seen individually and given an opportunity to report
back but also to discuss any other concerns or worries.
2.3 From the very beginning the work was
publicly criticised, particularly by Kidscape, a children's anti-bullying
charity. This criticism is largely attributable to:
— A poor choice of name. "The
No Blame Approach" does imply that the bully will suffer
no consequences to his actions. This is correct only in so far
as no punishment is given directly to the bully by the advocate,
but does not highlight the "self-inflicted punishment"
which the bully often endures. For example, if SGM is used properly,
the shame and horror that bullies often experience is intense
when they fully appreciate the pain they have inflicted on the
target.
With hindsight, it is easy to see that a title
that explained what the approach does achieve would have been
far better. During 2006, the name of the approach has been changed
to the Support Group Method.
— Non-punitive methodology is counter-intuitive
in UK culture where restorative practice is not well known or
embraced, particularly by the media.
— A misunderstanding of the method,
often seen as any non-punitive response and particularly as a
confrontation between "bully" and "victim".
2.4 The spread of the usage was significantly
established through Inset training courses provided, mainly in
response to invitation. During the one day course participants
experience a carefully planned and thorough description of, and
rationale for the procedure.
2.5 As the method was adopted increasingly
by individual schools, by whole local authorities and in several
overseas countries (Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and Ireland), enthusiasm and confidence grew. This was further
endorsed by a significant piece of research carried out in Hull,
which is discussed further in section four: "the evidence
base".
3. UK POLICY:
THE GOVERNMENT
VIEW 1999-2006
3.1 The UK Government view until very recently
has been moderately supportive of the Support Group Method.
In May 1999, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State for Education and Employment, Charles Clarke, said:
"Our (the DfEE's) role is to offer schools
advice on tackling bullying. As their circumstances differ, we
have no plans to recommend one single strategy for all schools;
they need to decide which ones best meet their own pupils' needs
and circumstances.
I am aware of the benefits of the Support Group
method in cases where bullying has occurred. In some circumstances,
this strategy may be the answer to combating bullying, but in
others a different approach may well be necessary and more effective.
As you know, it is described in the Department's anti-bullying
pack and we have no plans to change this at present."
2nd Edition of the Department for Education and
Skills (DfES)—"Don't suffer in Silence"—Anti-Bullying
Pack".
3.2 This DfES support pack for schools in
England was published in 1999 and evaluated in April 2003.
The Approach was nearly not included in this
second edition but at the insistence of Professor Peter Smith,
Goldsmiths College, University of London, it was incorporated
as the "Support Group" Approach NOT as it had been known—the
No Blame Approach. The then Minister for Education, David Blunkett
had vetoed any mention of "No Blame".
3.3 An evaluation of the Pack by Professor
Smith found that:
— Schools were using a range of strategies
to tackle bullying and to encourage pro-social behaviour. The
most highly rated strategies were: circle time; active listening/counselling
approaches; working with parents; improving the school grounds
and cooperative group work (a good example of the Support Group
Method).
— Schools generally felt that the problem
of bullying had slightly decreased since getting the pack.
— The Support Group Method gained a
relatively high rating (5-point scale and a rating of 3.5). It
was used more in secondary schools than in Infant and Primary
Schools.
3.4 Until 2005 the Support Group Method
was represented in government publications, on the DfES website
and referred to in the SEAL materials. Barbara Maines and George
Robinson were founder members of the Anti-bullying Alliance and
employed as regional coordinators in the South West. A sudden
change in government policy led to the removal of previous support
for our work and termination of our contracts with the Anti-bullying
Alliance. A press release was issued in February 2006 expressing
significant concern. [See Appendix Two: Blair Bullies Anti-Bullying
Alliance: 6 February 2006.][8]
3.5 More Recent Political Debate
Acceptance of the Support Group Method appears
to have started to change during the summer of 2005. The Education
Secretary at the time, Ruth Kelly said in an interview with The
Independent newspaper on 19 June 2005:
"We want a zero-tolerance approach to disruptive
behaviour, from the low-level back chat and mobile phone texting
in the classroom, to bullying or violence. Schools must have clear
and consistent boundaries for what is acceptable behaviour. Pupils
need to know where the limits are and what the consequences will
be."
This continued with a parliamentary question
in the House of Commons on 23 November 2005:
Dan Norris (Wansdyke)/Hansard source:
"This Friday, as part of anti-bullying week,
Lib-Dem controlled Bristol city council will call on its teachers
not to punish or blame pupils who bully other pupils. What message
does the Prime Minister have for those who adopt a no-blame approach,
which, in my view, is dangerous and reckless, does nothing for
the victims and does nothing to make bullies change their behaviour?"
Tony Blair (Prime Minister)/Hansard source:
"If what my hon. Friend says is correct
about the Liberal Democrats, then it is an extraordinary thing
for even them to do and I am shocked by it. [Interruption.] To
describe oneself as shocked by the Liberal Democrats is perhaps
an oxymoron.
I profoundly disagree with the position taken
by the council. Bullying should be punished. Children who bully
must be made to understand the harm that they have been doing.
New sanctions are available. I am pleased that in the Schools
White Paper we are giving teachers an unambiguous right to discipline.
It is absolutely necessary, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's
work on that serious problem."
A written question was tabled on 29 November:
Dan Norris (Wansdyke)/Hansard source:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education
and Skills
(1) what assessment she has made of the
effectiveness of different approaches to tackling bullying in
schools; and if she will make a statement;
(2) what assessment her Department has made
of the effectiveness of the no blame approach to tackling school
bullying; and if she will make a statement.
Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and
14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills)/Hansard
source:
Our guidance to schools on tackling bullying
Don't Suffer in Silence has been externally evaluated by
researchers at Goldsmith's college, University of London. The
results, though based on a fairly low response rate from schools,
show that the schools found that the pack met their expectations
and helped in drawing up their anti-bullying policies.
This evaluation included research into the perceived
success of the anti-bullying strategies and interventions recommended
in the guidance. Schools generally reported a high level of satisfaction
with the interventions they had used. I have placed a copy of
the research brief for this project in the Library.
The key feature of the "No Blame"
approach, is that it adopts an explicit stance of discouraging
punishment as a response to bullying. The Department does not
support this stance and neither does the Anti-Bullying Alliance.
Our guidance is clear that support and mediation strategies to
change behaviour can, and should, be used in tandem with sanctions
where appropriate. We are reviewing the guidance to make this
even more explicit.
As we do not promote the "No Blame"
approach for use in schools, we have not undertaken any assessment
of its effectiveness.
4. THE EVIDENCE
BASE FOR
THE METHOD'S
SUCCESS
4.1 In 1998, Sue Young published her work
on an independent evaluation about the SGM.
S. Young (1998)
The (No Blame) Support Group Method to bullying
in schools,
Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 32-39.
This was an independent evaluation carried out
in the Kingston upon Hull Special Educational Needs Support Service
(SENSS). Over a two-year period, in 80% of primary school cases
treated through the modified No Blame Approach there was an immediate
success.
In 14% of cases there was a delay, but after
three to five weekly reviews, the bullying stopped or the victims
reported that they no longer needed the support group.
In only 6% of cases did the victim report that
the bullying continued, or that he/she was bullied by different
pupils. There was a similar outcome in secondary school referrals.
4.2 Sue Young's evidence is strongly supportive
of the approach but there is surprisingly little more formal evidence.
During the many years which SGM has operated there are however
some powerful, personal endorsements of its success.
There have been far too many to list but some
are highlighted at Appendix Three: Personal Endorsements of the
SGM's Success.
4.3New research conducted in July/August 2006
In an attempt to understand better the use and
success (or otherwise) of SGM, independent research was conducted
over the summer of 2006. This was carried out by a highly respected
professional, Professor Peter Smith who heads the Unit for School
and Family Studies at Goldsmiths College, University of London.
Professor Smith has worked for many years in the bullying field,
is a member of the Anti-Bullying Alliance and has worked in the
past for DfEE on evaluating the DfES anti-bullying packs sent
to schools.
This new research has not yet been published
but it is clearly both recent, timely and informs greatly the
current status.
Key points of the research include:
— Researchers had considerable difficulty
in conducting the research due to the political sensitivity surrounding
SGM over the last year. When attempting to build the research
sample, Professor Smith planned to contact the Anti-Bullying Alliance
regional co-ordinators to get feedback on questionnaires and to
collect contact details.
"There was fortuitously, an ABA meeting
in June 2006 in London. However, the DfES representative there
objected to any ABA involvement in this research [...]
— All 150 Local Authorities were approached
[...] The speed and progress of collecting data form local authorities
(LAs) was varied. Some refused to do the questionnaire at all,
citing workload. The political sensitivity of this anti-bullying
strategy at this time was a considerable hindrance in collecting
data."
— Only 11% of LA's had an awareness
of how many primary and secondary schools used SGM—89% indicated
that they did not know. Yet over 60% of LAs supported the use
of this approach (29% were neutral and 7% did not encourage the
SGM.) NO LAs discouraged its use.
— The time span that the SGM has been
used by schools ranged from 1 year to its innovation in 1991.
The majority of schools started using SGM in the last five years
(69%). 97% of the schools who replied also indicated that they
continue to use it, with 75% using it across the whole school.
— When schools were asked to provide
evidence for the overall effectiveness of the approach in dealing
with bullying, 53% indicated that they did have enough evidence
to give an informed opinion.
— 56% gave a very satisfactory or satisfactory
rating; 32% did not give a rating; 12% were neutral and no schools
gave either a rather or very unsatisfactory rating.
Professor Smith's final comments summarise the
state of play in 2006:
"This survey is a useful step forward, with
a broader and more detailed evidence base from LAs and schools
than has previously been available. The findings are clearly limited
by the sample; in particular the response rate for schools was
very low. In addition, data has only come from LA and school representatives:
we have not heard the direct voices of pupils or parents (even
though schools often cited them as evidence)."
"In summary, what evidence there is, is
supportive of the Support Group Method—but, there is definitely
a need for more research, carried out independently and targeting
a wide range of schools that are using the approach. This survey
is a first step in this direction. It should only be a beginning
to more focused and dedicated study of the effectiveness of the
Support Group Method and indeed of all other anti-bullying interventions."
September 2006
8 Not printed. Back
| 
