a report for the city of yarra march 2018...ctc ltd, a joint initiative of the royal children’s...

The Collingwood

College BSEM

Pilot

A Report for the City of Yarra March 2018

Dr Malcolm J Turnbull Youth Research Centre Melbourne Graduate School of Education University of Melbourne

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Berry Street Education Model (BSEM) is an

educational initiative that (a) provides schools

with training, curriculum and strategies to

engage ALL students (including their most

challenging students), and (b) is designed to

improve a school’s capacity to engage vulnerable

or disadvantaged young people and help them

achieve their personal and social potential

through educational achievement. It is currently

being implemented at Collingwood College, a P-

12 facility in inner Melbourne, as part of the

Yarra Communities that Care (CTC) initiative.

Based on the results of a comprehensive Youth

Survey conducted across the LGA in 2015, CTC

has identified strengthening the well-being of

Middle Years children (8-14 year olds) as a

priority issue. The Collingwood College BSEM

Pilot is one of two CTC strategies aimed at

increasing young people’s adaptive behaviour,

capacity for coping and personal resilience. (The

other CTC well-being strategy is support for the

PATHS program in schools).

The current evaluation report, which has been

commissioned and funded by the City of Yarra as

part of Yarra CTC, examines the roll-out and

initial 12 month delivery of the BSEM at

Collingwood College with particular reference to

its impacts on teaching and learning in the

school’s Middle Years classes (i.e. Years 4 to 8). It

is anticipated that report findings will inform

ongoing delivery of the BSEM at Collingwood

College (including monitoring of the students as

they progress through year levels) and possible

expansion of the program to other Yarra schools,

under the Yarra CTC umbrella.

Evaluation Context: Yarra CTC

BSEM at Collingwood College has been

implemented as part of Yarra CTC, an initiative

seeking to promote the healthy development of

children and young people through identification

and prevention of social and health problems.

Devised and developed at the University of

Washington in the 1980s, the CTC model has

since been implemented across more than 500

communities in the United States and adopted

and adapted in the UK, Canada, the Netherlands,

Germany, and (post-2000) in Australia. The

licensed provider of the process in Australia is

CTC Ltd, a joint initiative of the Royal Children’s

Hospital (Melbourne) and Melbourne Rotary

which assists community coalitions to implement

evidence-based prevention strategies according

to Collective Impact principles. In 2017 10

registered CTC sites were located within

Victorian LGAs. Yarra CTC was launched in

February 2015.

The City of Yarra is a socio-economically and

culturally diverse LGA; 38% of the population

were born outside Australia. Inner-city

gentrification and demographic shifts have

created a residential mix of affluence and

disadvantage: i.e. growing numbers of young

professional families alongside a significant

migrant “footprint” and the largest public

housing population in Victoria. Yarra CTC

involves over 24 partner agencies working

together towards a shared vision for middle

years children and young people (aged 8-14

years) in the City of Yarra: “To enhance the

healthy development of children, young people,

and their families in Yarra through evidence

based collaborative planning, action and

evaluation.”

Informed by Yarra CTC survey findings, CTC

partners have a developed a shared Action Plan

and a commitment to three outcome areas:

1. Reduce alcohol and other drug use

2. Improve personal resilience

3. Strengthen family relationships and

management.

Six strategies or programs have been selected to

address the three outcome areas. The Two

programs being implemented in response to the

aim of improving personal resilience are

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies

(PATHS) and the BSEM. The first school to

implement BSEM as part of Yarra CTC is

Collingwood College, which has also been

implementing elements of the PATHS syllabus for

approximately three years within its Primary

School. According to teachers and school

ii

The Collingwood College BSEM Pilot: an evaluation

leadership, the BSEM is both a complement to

PATHS, and an extension of it. Acknowledging

that a proliferation of Well-being or Social

Emotional Learning programs in recent years has

provided them with multiple choices in this area,

they cite the whole-school focus of the BSEM and

the rigour of its PD components as fundamental

to the decision to trial it.

Methodology & Research Design

Evaluation of the 2017 Collingwood College

delivery of the BSEM has drawn on a mix of

qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques

in addressing four key research questions:

1. Has the BSEM been implemented with

high fidelity (as intended) at Collingwood College?

2. Has BSEM impacted on teacher practice?

3. Has BSEM impacted on student’s wellbeing, engagement and achievement?

4. Has BSEM impacted on school-wide

practice?

Table: Summary of data collection Data source Method No.

School leadership (Primary and

Secondary Principals)

Interview 2

Teachers (2 Primary, 2

Secondary)

Interview 4

Teachers participating in

training

Survey 60

Students (Years 6 & 8) Focus

group

7

School Welfare Officer Interview 1

Yarra CTC Program Leader Interview 2

Berry Street trainers Interview 3

TOTAL 79

Theoretical Context: The BSEM

The BSEM builds on, and extends, the two-tier

‘healing’ approach characteristic of traditional

or standard models of trauma-informed learning.

The Model proposes three tiers of therapeutic

learning and growth, that extend the focus of

previous practice on repairing the student’s

regulatory abilities (Domain 1) and repairing

the student’s disrupted attachments (Domain

2), by adding a third domain: increasing the

young person’s psychological resources in

order to promote post-traumatic growth

(Domain 3). Both the professional development

(PD) training and classroom application of the

BSEM are developmental or sequential. Teachers

and students work progressively through FIVE

(sub) domains or Pedagogical lenses, starting

with ‘BODY’/ aka Increasing regulatory abilities,

and then progressing through the sub-domains of

STAMINA, ENGAGEMENT and CHARACTER. All

are anchored by the ‘lens’ of RELATIONSHIPS. In

turn, each of the sub-domains/lenses comprises

a cluster of focus areas/ sub-themes within

which are located sets of teaching and

intervention strategies, detailed lesson plans and

‘Brainbreaks’ (i.e. short-burst of 2-5 minute

physical activities) that can be woven into class

procedure, called upon when needed, or used to

respond to an individual student’s emotional

state at any time.

The BSEM Training Program

Berry Street promotes and disseminates its

Model of Education through the combination of a

comprehensive body of teaching resources and

curriculum materials that are underpinned by

intensive teacher-training and in-service activity.

The PD program aims:

(a) to educate participants in re-engaging young

people in learning, and progressing them, through sustained cognitive and behavioural change;

(b) to develop the capacity of each participant to

take strategies back to their schools/classes and lead changes to school culture and teacher practice;

(c) to assist teachers in achieving a range of

short and long-term educational outcomes that include improved academic growth, school attendance and well-being and a

iii


decrease in anti-social or challenging behaviours.

In the case of Collingwood College, the training

sequence has comprised four days of PD

delivered at the school (in December 2016, June

and September 2017, and February 2018) plus

the equivalent of two days consultancy, aimed at

supporting staff and students to practice and

embed BSEM principles.

The BSEM at Collingwood College

Collingwood College is one of the oldest State

schools in metropolitan Melbourne, originating

as Vere Street National School in 1882. It became

Collingwood [P-12] College in 1990. The

diversity of the district is replicated in both the

current enrolment mix and in the program

alternatives on offer. Asked to estimate socio-

economic ratios within the school population, the

Primary Principal described 55% of the current

Prep year as meeting low SES and disadvantage

criteria; 50% are ESL students. Elsewhere, the

Index of Community Socio-Educational

Advantage (ICSEA) on the MySchool website

ranks Collingwood College at 1065 for 2017

(average is 1000), with 18% of families within

the bottom quarter. The Language background

other than English is rated at 38%.

In addition to its standard mainstream Primary

and Secondary streams, the College’s specialist

curriculum options include its Steiner program,

one of the few deliveries of that pedagogical

approach on offer in a State school setting. Since

2008, Collingwood College has also offered

students the Primary school (Prep – Grade 4)

option of the Reggio Emilia program. Secondary

options include VCAL and VET while a shared

class arrangement with Fitzroy SC maximises

VCE subject choices for Year 11 & 12 students.

Challenges faced by the school Recent years have seen a major turnaround in

enrolments following a challenging period of

declining numbers. The 2017 enrolment of 855

(an increase of more than 100% since 2012) can

be said to reflect the school’s increasing success

at student engagement on the one hand, and on

the other, both population growth within the LGA

and growing levels of parental satisfaction with

diverse College curricula.

These changes notwithstanding, there is

acknowledgement that the day-to-day demands

and pressures shared by most urban educational

settings in the early 21st century continue to be

compounded at Collingwood College by its

particular demographic. School leadership cite

the particular challenges of significant levels of

socio-economic disadvantage amongst some

groups within the student population; under-

resourcing by the Department of Education,

resulting in an inadequate level of specialist

support; a public profile that has been somewhat

“skewed” or “camouflaged” by (a) its willingness

to explore alternative approaches (like Steiner

and Reggio Emilia) and (b) gentrification of some

parts of the LGA.

Why the BSEM?

Awareness of the need to focus explicitly on

domains of student well-being and self-esteem,

and on development of effective classroom

behaviour and learning strategies, prompted the

school to introduce the PATHS program, at Prep-

Year 6, in 2014. While conceding the value of

PATHS, as both “a good resource” and “a great

program”, staff have reported that its impact to

date has been “limited”. Having identified a

continuing need to address Student resilience

(i.e. in responding to the CTC survey), it was

suggested that another approach might more

effectively address the issue. Fundamental to

whole-school roll-out of the BSEM, has been

recognition of (a) the need for deeper teacher

insight/understanding of the reality of many

students’ lives; (b) the need for an enlightened

consistency across the school in the way students

are engaged and monitored, and (c) agreement

that whole-school approaches to support student

wellbeing are more effective than single program

delivery options, ensuring strategies are

embedded across the school for greater impact.

iv


Findings

Has the BSEM been implemented with high

fidelity?

1. The Training: preparation of the

teachers to implement the BSEM

Interview feedback confirms that the school was

able to commit sufficient time and resources to

enable BSEM to deliver their PD and follow-up

days. All teachers and support staff (around 80,

across Primary and Secondary) took part.

While the PD program has not been without

minor challenges (reference has been made in

interview to Timetabling constraints and Less

than ideal physical spaces for whole staff

training sessions), Trainer reports of the

enthusiastic and positive responses they have

encountered have been strongly reinforced by

feedback from school leadership and teachers,

i.e.: very high levels of satisfaction with the PD,

and general agreement that both style and

content have successfully engaged teachers

‘across the board’. The presentations

themselves have been described as “highly” or

“very engaging”, “excellent”, “inspiring” and

“absolutely outstanding”. In summary, the BSEM

was delivered as designed and at a high quality.

A survey of training participants, conducted on

the last day of PD, and completed by 75% of staff

(i.e. 60 out of 80 participants), strongly

reinforces the positive interview feedback.

Asked to reflect on ways in which the PD had

enriched both their learning and teaching,

respondents made persistent reference to

coming away with: a better understanding of

themselves, heightened awareness of how to

support and teach trauma-affected students,

feeling validated in their approaches and ideas

they have implemented; a common language,

etc. Asked to nominate the components of the

BSEM they had found most useful in the

classroom: 10% of respondents nominated ALL

domains and elements; a further 42%

nominated several elements within each

DOMAIN; 70% of survey respondents

nominated elements within the STAMINA

domain as most useful.

2. Program Roll-out

Interviews late in the year indicated that the

BSEM had been introduced to the students with

varying levels of rigour; however “everyone has

taken on something … there have been lots of

different starting points”. The key challenge in

rolling-out the BSEM has been incorporating

content into already very tight timetables. Lack

of time has limited opportunities for the

classroom observation component of the

training (for instance). The secondary school

Principal in 2017 took responsibility for the

BSEM in addition to his general administrative

duties, highlights the desirability (in future) of

releasing a teacher part-time to co-ordinate

delivery and monitoring of the program.

Primary teacher interviewees have reported

finding the BSEM highly compatible with both

the Steiner & Reggio Emilia philosophies. They

appear to have been at an advantage in rolling

out the BSEM (“Developing relationships is much

simpler if you have the kids the whole time”). At

the same time, it should be noted that a number

of Secondary teachers have been enterprising in

using Home group time (30 minutes each

morning) as their delivery vehicle. Enthusiastic

take-up of the BSEM by these and other Middle

Years staff has prompted the establishment of

‘Mindfulness Monday’ for the school’s Year 9

cohort. Unsurprisingly, opportunities have been

more limited for single subject teachers.

However, staff report that ‘Brainbreaks’ are

being used across the school. BSEM components

have also been part-and-parcel of a strong

emphasis on Mental Health & Well-being in the

Secondary Health & PE syllabus.

Has the BSEM impacted on Teacher Practice?

1. Impact on Professional Learning

Having praised the engagement capacity of the

BSEM training, interviewees likewise confirmed

v


its value as Professional Learning in the areas of

traumatology and alternative pedagogies. For

instance: interviewees described the training

and the suite of reference booklets as “a godsend

to young teachers”, in many cases unprepared by

their “patchy” undergraduate training or limited

experiences on practicum for “behaviour

management … [and] the whole pastoral care

thing”. The BSEM has also been described as

“still enriching for more experienced teachers”. A

recurrent theme at interview was the value of

the BSEM in encouraging and promoting

personal reflection. One teacher expressed

particular pleasure at the way the training and

implementation of the BSEM were validating her

practice and skill level.

2. Changes to teacher practice

Reference was made to the value of BSEM training in providing all practitioners - and not just those new to alternative pedagogies - with a “common language” and a readily accessible tool-box of practical strategies, activities and ideas. Interviewees provided several examples of

changes to their own practice that have proved

beneficial. For example: Secondary teachers

reported having immediately introduced the

BODY domain at the start of Term 1, and noted

the efficacy of compiling de-escalation charts,

instituting regular brainbreaks and facilitating

discussions around physical responses to stress

at a time when “… They’re in a new class … some

teachers are new … it’s a new year”.

Other examples were provided by teachers who

reported on the efficacy of five minute ‘Thumb

pointing’ brain-break, Growth mindset lessons

“Whenever I start something new with the

students that I know they’re going to find a

challenge”) and the process of recording reading

milestones in a reading log (“That really pushes

them forward”).

3. Changes in Student-Teacher

relationships

There was clear recognition that BSEM training

had reinforced insight into the students’ needs

and how best to solidify the teacher-student

relationship. According to one teacher: “When a

child is talking – I remind myself: it’s because he

or she needs to talk … and I need to focus on what

else might be happening”.

Others highlighted the usefulness to their day-

to-day interactions of: the BSEM concept of

Unconditional Positive Regard: and the flow-on

benefits of facilitating a calm and focused

learning environment. Several interviewees

stressed the importance of continuing to

maintain the momentum as regards the BSEM. A

large sector of the staff having been exposed to

largely “new material”, one teacher stressed the

imperative of ensuring that the PD be

reinforced through rigorous classroom

application: “When the training finishes, we can’t

just let it peter out …This is actually the bread

and butter of what we do …”.

Has the BSEM impacted on Student Engagement, Well-being and Achievement?

1. Understanding of BSEM domains and

Increased Self-awareness

Student focus groups near the end of the pilot

indicated that a number of BSEM terms, learned

at the outset of the pilot, were continuing to

resonate with both Primary and Secondary

young people. Focus group participants

specifically confirmed having “taken on”:

‘Growth Mindset’, Resilience, Mindfulness,

Present Centred Grounded and Zen Zone.

2. Impact of BSEM on Student well-

being

In terms of the BSEM assisting young people in

development of coping or adaptive behaviour,

Years 5/6 students confirmed the usefulness of:

Mood charts (in helping alert teachers when

they felt unready for learning); De-escalation

charts; SAFETY PLANS; and a variety of

Brainbreaks. Year 7/8 students echoed their

Primary counterparts in citing the practical

value of both Safety Plans (expressing

confidence that they had people they could go to

in a time of crisis or difficulty) and Brain breaks.

vi


They reported having tried and utilised various

breathing exercises, ‘counting our pulses’,

variations on ‘silent ball’, thumb pointing, etc.

Overall, student feedback indicates that a clear

understanding and recognition of the link

between stress and not being able to learn

effectively, underlies individualised ‘calming’

strategies. Focus group participants uniformly

cited positive relationships with their class or

home-group teachers.

3. Impact of the BSEM on student

achievement & engagement

It is generally agreed that roll-out of the BSEM

has been just one contributing factor within the

‘bigger picture’, its introduction having

coincided with – and been part of – the school’s

strategic focus on improving student

performance against statewide averages and

attendance and school completion data. Targets

set in the school’s latest Strategic plan (2015-

18) included such projections as: a 10%

increase by 2018 in the number of students

performing at A or B levels in AUSVELS; and for

Annual SASS results to demonstrate improved

student satisfaction (at or above the 75th

percentile by 2018) within such Engagement

and Well-being variables as school

connectedness, learning confidence, student

safety and classroom behaviour.

Two years into the time-frame, the school was

able to report (for instance) that AusVELS

results were within the middle 60% of Victorian

schools (and similar to like schools); and that

results for Connectedness to School and Student

Safety variables on SASS 2016 were within the

middle band (at Primary level) and within the

top 20% of schools (at Secondary level). The

following year SASS 2017 confirmed that

Strategic plan targets were being met, with

results for such variables as Effective classroom

behaviour, Resilience, Connectedness, School

safety Self-regulation and Confidence all at or

above the 75th percentile.

While more than one interviewee suggested that

these changes need to be viewed with some

caution (given the socio-economic diversity of

the student mix), improvements in annual data

would seem to reflect a school culture open to

alternative pedagogies and innovation. The

Primary Principal anticipates a further – and

marked - upward shift in Engagement & Well-

being in the next set of SASS data (2018), and he

feels confident in nominating the BSEM as one

contributing factor.

Has the BSEM impacted on school-wide practice? While the take-up of BSEM has varied from

teacher to teacher, school leadership believes

that the impact of the Model is being felt across

Collingwood College, is already “heavily

embedded” in the school’s strategic planning, and

has begun to “filter down to teacher performance

plans”. It is conceded that take-up of BSEM

elements has been strongest at Primary level.

Even so, interviewees have noted having

witnessed “a lot of work in [Secondary] home

groups” or having observed classes work on

character strengths.

Conclusion: Where to Next

The Primary School Principal suggests that the

biggest challenge ahead will be keeping up the

momentum. Given the need to support staff in

keeping abreast of current research in their

individual Berry Street ‘journeys’, the need to

facilitate formal integration of BSEM into the

whole-school syllabus, and the need to ensure

that new staff are able to ‘immerse’ themselves

in BSEM principles, it has been suggested (in

interview and survey): that Collingwood College

continue its engagement with Berry Street

through refresher sessions, individual

consultations, etc.; and that the school attempt,

where possible, to ensure that co-ordination of

BSEM activities is a formal part of an

appropriately credentialed Leading Teacher’s

workload.

Recommendations

(a) That, in order to ensure to maximise the

efficiency, consistency and rigour of

Collingwood College’s ongoing

subscription to the BSEM, that

vii


responsibility for co-ordination and

implementation be made a designated

part of a suitably-qualified Leading

Teacher’s role.

(b) Given strong interest (in survey

responses) in further access to trauma-

informed educational research and the

sharing of ‘coalface’ experiences and

strategies, that Collingwood College be

encouraged to become involved in Berry

Street’s Alumni program;

(c) That new staff be provided with the

opportunities to complete Berry Street

training;

(d) That the school progress its relationship

with Berry Street through

commissioning follow-up and refresher

sessions

(e) Interest having been expressed in

extending BSEM training to students (as

originally intended), that student

leaders be invited to participate in future

follow-up sessions or refresher

seminars.

(f) Given the recent timing of the Pilot that

the school continue to monitor annual

SASS data and other achievement

indicators in the interests of assessing

longer-term impact of the BSEM.

With a view to the possible expansion of CTC’s

BSEM partnerships into other schools, and based

on findings from multiple implementations of the

BSEM, it is recommended that:

• Participating schools seek to ensure

school-wide (rather than sectional or

year level) implementation of the BSEM.

• Further to the above, that in taking on

the BSEM, the school commit (a) to

ensuring ALL staff are able to undertake

the PD and training component, and (b)

that sufficient resources and time are

allocated to enable Berry Street trainers

to maximise their delivery of the PD

content.

• Where possible, the school make every

effort to ensure that a dedicated teacher,

with specifically-allocated time-release,

etc, take on responsibility for overall co-

ordination of the BSEM.

8


CONTENTS

Executive Summary i-vii

1. Introduction 2

2. Evaluation Context: Yarra Communities that Care 3

3. Methodology & Research design 8

4. Theoretical Context : The BSEM 9

• The BSEM Training Program 11

• The BSEM at Collingwood College 13

o Collingwood College 13

o Challenges faced by the school 14

o Why the BSEM? 15

5. FINDINGS 17

• Implementation of the Model at Collingwood

College 17

• Impact of BSEM on teacher practice 22

• Impact of BSEM on student wellbeing,

engagement and achievement 25

• Schoolwide impact of the BSEM 29

• Conclusion 30

• Recommendations 31

• Appendix 34

9


Introduction

The Berry Street Education Model (BSEM) is an educational initiative that (a) provides

schools with training, curriculum and strategies to engage ALL students (including their

most challenging students), and (b) is designed to improve a school’s capacity to engage

vulnerable or disadvantaged young people and help them achieve their personal and

social potential through educational achievement. It is currently being implemented at

Collingwood College, a P-12 facility in inner Melbourne, as part of the Yarra Communities

that Care (CTC) initiative.

Based on the results of a comprehensive Youth survey conducted across the LGA in 2015,

CTC has identified strengthening the well-being of Middle Years children (8-14 year olds)

as a priority issue. The Collingwood College BSEM Pilot is one of two CTC strategies aimed

at increasing young people’s adaptive behaviour, capacity for coping and personal

resilience. (The other CTC well-being strategy is support for the PATHS program in

schools).

Linking the research domains of traumatology and positive education, the BSEM was

originally developed to assist teachers to address the complex needs of students who had

experienced trauma at the three school campuses set up and run by the Berry Street

organisation. 1 On the basis of successful in-house application of that training, and in

response to a number of requests for help from the broader community, the decision was

made by Berry Street management in 2014 to promote and share the BSEM with

mainstream government and independent schools.

Implicit in the decision was recognition that:

1 Brunzell, T. (2014). Trauma Informed Positive Education at the Berry Street School. Melbourne: Berry Street Victoria. Retrieved from www.berrystreet.org.au 28 April 2015; Brunzell, T., Abbott, L. & Sheehan, R. (eds) (2015) The Berry Street Education Model: Curriculum and Classroom Strategies, Melbourne: Berry Street Victoria; Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected students: A new approach to healing and growth in the classroom. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 1, 3-9. Having been a key participant in the Victorian social services network since 1877, Berry Street is the largest independent

child and welfare organisation in the state. Its programs have encompassed counselling, housing and employment assistance,

therapeutic outreach and prevention programs, residential care and (beginning in 2003) formal educational programming.

The Berry Street school was a response to concerns that the educational and therapeutic needs of a growing number of

vulnerable young Victorians were not being met by mainstream settings. 130 young people are currently enrolled across

three campuses (at Noble Park, Shepparton and Morwell).

http://www.berrystreet.org.au/

10


• a significant proportion of Australian school students have been trauma-affected.

(While exact statistics are elusive, a recent estimate that almost 40% of American

school students have been exposed to trauma has clear ramifications for

Australian educators)

• schools are in real need of educational approaches and pedagogies that address a

range of symptoms and behaviours (such as school refusal, ADHD, limited

attentional capacities, poor relationships, etc).

Accordingly, the model was piloted in two mainstream schools in 2015. 2 Its success

having confirmed the potential benefits of the BSEM for ALL students (and teachers) at

those settings, an estimated 3100 teachers and other school personnel have completed

the BSEM Professional Development program and the BSEM has been adopted as a

whole-school approach to developing students’ social emotional competence by 57

additional schools.

The current evaluation report, which has been commissioned and funded by the City of

Yarra as part of Yarra CTC, examines the roll-out and initial 12 month delivery of the

BSEM at Collingwood College with particular reference to its impacts on teaching and

learning in the school’s Middle Years classes (i.e. Years 5-8). It is anticipated that report

findings will inform ongoing delivery of the BSEM at Collingwood College and possible

expansion of the program to other schools, under the Yarra CTC umbrella.

Evaluation Context: Yarra Communities that Care

Communities that Care

Communities that Care is an evidence-based framework that empowers communities to

work together and build local capacity to address the root-causes of issues facing their

young people. It advocates the implementation of strategies that are prevention focused,

evidence-based and wide reaching. It works to prevent health and social problems by

enhancing factors likely to lead to positive development, and reducing factors likely to

lead to adverse outcomes for children and young people.

The CTC framework has been shown to be successful through a number of large scale

community trials, both in the United States (where it originated), and in Australia.

Devised and developed at the University of Washington in the 1980s, the CTC model has

since been implemented across more than 500 communities in the United States and

2 See Stokes, H. & Turnbull, M. (2016) Evaluation of the Berry Street Education Model: Trauma-informed positive education enacted in mainstream schools, Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, University of Melbourne

11


adopted and adapted in the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and (post-2000) in

Australia. The licensed provider of the process in Australia is CTC Ltd, a joint initiative of

the Royal Children’s Hospital (Melbourne) and Melbourne Rotary which assists

community coalitions to implement evidence-based prevention strategies according to

Collective Impact principles. In 2017 registered CTC sites are located within local

Government in the Cities of Bendigo, Cardinia, Knox, Alpine, Colac, East Gippsland,

Stonnington, Redcliffe (Qld), Warrnambool and Yarra. Yarra CTC was launched in

February 2015.

The CTC process involves five phases that form part of an on ongoing cycle of action.

These include:

1. creating community readiness

2. mobilising the support of key leaders and setting up a committee to oversee the program

3. developing a community profile through a CTC Youth Survey

4. identifying evidence-based strategies and developing an action plan

5. implementing and evaluating agreed strategies.

CTC subscribes to research evidence:

➢ That five basic factors promote positive social development (i.e. opportunities for

developmentally appropriate involvement; skills to participate and succeed;

recognition for effort, improvement and achievement; strong social bonds; and

clear, consistent standards for behaviour)

➢ That risk factors (eg. Family management problems, academic failure) can

interrupt the process of positive development, while enhancement of protective

factors can act as a buffer in otherwise adverse circumstances

Yarra Communities that Care

Yarra CTC commenced in 2015, and has many achievements to date, including the

development of strong collaborations, across high levels of a range of local community

organisations. Yarra CTC is governed by a collaborative partnership of over 24 agencies

and schools that operate in Yarra. The governance structure consists of a Key Leaders

Group (senior members of organisations providing leadership, oversight and strategic

direction) and a Community Board (local service providers delivering programs).

In 2015, Yarra CTC collected robust health and wellbeing information on 357 year 6

students in 13 primary schools and 275 year 8 students in four primary schools across

Yarra. The Yarra CTC Youth Survey findings were used to inform service delivery and

service planning in Yarra. In addition to the CTC Youth Survey, data collection is taking

12


place alongside program implementation and will continue throughout the

implementation phase.

Informed by the Yarra CTC Survey Findings, Yarra CTC partners developed a shared

commitment to focus on three priority issues for young people in the middle years and their

families. These agreed priority areas enable partners to focus on achieving outcomes over a

three year period (2016 – 2019). The priority areas are:

(a) reduce alcohol and other drug use

(b) improve personal resilience

(c) strengthen family relationships and management.

A Shared Plan for Action was created based on the three priority areas (see Figure 1

below), which includes six strategies that have a proven record for addressing these

priority areas. It builds on strengths and addresses gaps in existing local practice.

BSEM was selected by the Yarra CTC Key Leaders and Community Board as one of the

programs to address improvements in personal resilience amongst middle years

students. The other strategy selected was support for continuing delivery of the PATHS

(Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) Program across a number of City of Yarra

Primary schools. PATHS has been described as a “preventive intervention program …

which places primary importance on the development of affect … behaviour and cognitive

understanding as they relate to social and emotional competence” [Kam, Greenberg &

Kusche 2004: 67]. Developed in the USA in the 1990s, the PATHS curriculum model

synthesises the three domains of self-control, emotional understanding and social

problem solving in seeking to increase the child’s protective factors and decrease risk

factors.3

Collingwood College’s Primary classes have been implementing elements of the PATHS

syllabus for approximately three years. According to teachers and school leadership, the

BSEM is both a complement to PATHS, and an extension of it. Acknowledging that a

proliferation of Well-being or Social Emotional Learning programs in recent years has

provided them with multiple choices in this area, they cite the whole-school focus of the

BSEM and the rigour of its PD components as fundamental to the decision to trial it. Citing

Stokes & Turnbull (2016) and ongoing evaluation of the Model by the University of

Melbourne, selection of the BSEM as one of the six CTC strategies has been described as

“an obvious choice … it is evidence-informed [and] gives the College an opportunity to

contribute to further evidence gathering as to its worth”.

3 Kam, C, Greenberg, M. & Kusche, C. (2004) Sustained effects of the PATHS curriculum on the social and psychological adjustment of children in Special Education, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 12(2): 66-78.

13


Implementation of the six Yarra CTC evidence-based programs began in 2016 and

continued throughout 2017. By the end of 2017, a total of 12 CTC programs were

delivered in 10 schools (four secondary and six primary schools) and two community

settings. Programs implemented directly involved 606 middle years’ children and young

people and 32 parents, with some initial positive results. For example, as a result of Yarra CTC,

there was an 11% decrease in the number of packaged liquor outlets in Yarra that sold

alcohol to a young person without asking for identification; 100% of parents participating

in programs reported being more aware of their children’s emotions.

Yarra CTC Action Plan (2016-19)

14


The City of Yarra

The City of Yarra encompasses 19.5

square kilometres of metropolitan

Melbourne’s inner-eastern and

northern suburbs, covering

Abbotsford, Burnley, Clifton Hill,

Collingwood, Fitzroy, North Carlton,

North Fitzroy, Princes Hill and

Richmond, as well as parts of

Alphington and Fairfield. According to

the 2016 census, the current

population of 91,000 represents a

23% increase over five years, making

the City of Yarra a the ninth fastest

growing municipality in metropolitan

Melbourne. Yarra is socio-economically and culturally diverse; 38% of the population

were born outside Australia. Inner-city gentrification and demographic shifts have

created a residential mix of affluence and disadvantage: i.e. growing numbers of young

professional families alongside a significant migrant “footprint” and the largest public

housing population in Victoria.4 Educational facilities within the LGA include 24 state

Primary schools and seven secondary settings.

4 Environment and Planning References Committee, Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the contribution of environmental design to prevention and public health in Victoria. Submission by Yarra City Council June 2011 https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/council/SCEP/EDPH/Subs/No.45_Yarra.pdf

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/council/SCEP/EDPH/Subs/No.45_Yarra.pdf

15


Methodology/ Research Design

Evaluation of the 2017 Collingwood College delivery of the BSEM has drawn on a mix of

qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques in addressing four overarching

questions:

1. Has the BSEM been implemented with high fidelity (as intended) at

Collingwood College?

2. Has BSEM impacted on teacher practice?

3. Has BSEM impacted on student’s wellbeing, engagement and achievement?

4. Has BSEM impacted on school-wide practice?

Data collection was carried out throughout 2017 and during Term 1, 2018. Evaluation

data was drawn from:

(a) focus groups and interviews conducted with students, teachers, school welfare and

school leadership during five visits to the school (in February 2017, September 2017,

February 2018)

(b) a survey conducted with school staff called the “Training Intentions Exit Ticket”

implemented by Berry Street trainers on the last day of PD, and completed by 75% of

College staff (survey was supplied by Berry Street, see Appendix 1)

(c) preliminary interviews and regular updates with:

• the Yarra Communities That Care Program Leader (City of Yarra)

• BSEM trainers.

Table: Summary of data collection Data source Method No.

School leadership (Primary and Secondary Principals) Interview 2

Teachers (2 Primary, 2 Secondary) Interview 4

Teachers participating in training Survey 60

Students (Years 6 & 8) Focus group 7

School Welfare Officer Interview 1

Yarra CTC Program Leader Interview 2

Berry Street trainers Interview 3

TOTAL 79

Other data included in the analysis included:

16


• Collingwood College Education administration data, including NAPLAN results

and student well-being data (based on the annual Student Attitude to School

survey), supplied by the school.

• Attendance data, supplied by Collingwood College School Profile 2016 (MySchool

website) and Collingwood College 2016 Annual Report.

Theoretical context: The BSEM The BSEM builds on, and extends, the two-tier ‘healing’ approach characteristic of

traditional or standard models of trauma-informed Learning.

Whereas such initiatives as the Sanctuary and ARC programs (USA) or the Calmer

Classrooms model (Australia) have focused primarily on ‘repairing’ the student and have

proceeded from a ‘deficit’ perspective (i.e. by addressing the student’s developmental

difficulties), the BSEM proceeds from a Strengths base that seeks to enable the student to

build on his or her positive skills and capacities.

The Model proposes three tiers of therapeutic learning and growth, that extend the focus

of previous practice on repairing the student’s regulatory abilities (Domain 1) and

repairing the student’s disrupted attachments (Domain 2), by adding a third domain:

increasing the young person’s psychological resources in order to promote post-

traumatic growth (Domain 3). Where standard models have tended to place initial

emphasis on relationship-building and student engagement, the BSEM underlines the

importance of first addressing the ‘physical’. It responds to compelling neuro-scientific

evidence that teaching needs to address the child’s biological and developmental delays

before he/she can be expected to be ‘ready’ to build relationships or engage with learning

content.

17


The process of repairing dysregulated stress responses involves

creation of environments within which young people can learn to

identify and self-regulate negative emotions and impulses, and manage

their behaviour before engaging.

Both the PD training and classroom application of the BSEM are

developmental or sequential. Teachers and students work

progressively through FIVE (sub) domains or Pedagogical lenses,

starting with ‘BODY’/ aka Increasing regulatory abilities, and then progressing through

the sub-domains of STAMINA, ENGAGEMENT and CHARACTER. All are anchored by the

‘lens’ of RELATIONSHIPS. In turn, each of the sub-domains/lenses comprises a cluster of

focus areas/ sub-themes within which are located sets of teaching and intervention

strategies, detailed lesson plans and ‘Brainbreaks’ (i.e. short-burst (2-5 minute) physical

activities that can be woven into class procedure, called upon when needed, or used to

respond to an individual student’s emotional state at any time.

By way of example (and as indicated in the diagram below), within the first sub-domain

of BODY, classroom practice and planning are framed by 4 inter-connected sub-themes:

rhythm, self-regulation, mindfulness, and de-escalation. Focus on the sub-theme of

Rhythm can be articulated, for instance, through recording students’ heart rates (as “a

rhythmic form of body regulation”), or its use in such ‘Brain breaks’ as ‘Silent Ball’, Brain

Gym activities or Call & Response games). Focus on the sub-theme of Self-Regulation

typically includes classroom content around the topic of Stress that seeks to provide

students with ways to identify their own stress responses and different coping strategies.

Within Self-Regulation, focus on Rhythm (and entrenching rhythm and repetition into the

school day) can be articulated by recording students’ heart rates or Brain Gym activities.

Teaching around the sub-theme Mindfulness focuses on the student’s awareness of

his/her physical self and responses, specifically breathing, noticing, listening and “being

Present, centred and grounded”. The sub-theme De-escalation is typically addressed

through class discussion, the creation and use of de-escalation maps, and the

collaborative design of individual safety plans.

Classroom activities within the BODY domain articulate Tier 1 of the Model (i.e. Repairing

self-regulatory abilities) and provide the base/foundation for subsequent delivery of the

BSEM. From BODY teaching progresses through the sequence to CHARACTER (thereby

articulating Tiers 2 and 3 of the Model, i.e. Repairing Relational Capacities and Increasing

psychological resources). Within the RELATIONSHIPS domain, planning and practice

focus around such themes as Attachment, Zen Mood, Unconditional Positive Regard

and Teacher Self-Care. Attachment-based strategies aim to create a safe, inclusive and

inviting environment while the Whole-School Relationships theme encompasses the

concepts of peer respect, shared responsibility for each student and teacher-teacher

18


support. Implicit in the theme Unconditional Positive Regard are (a) the importance

of understanding the background and ‘thwarted pathways’ of the child’s development,

and (b) the need to maintain a vision of the child’s ‘wholeness’ (thereby separating the

person from the behaviour).

The STAMINA domain focuses on the development of Emotional Intelligence,

Frustration tolerance and Personal Resilience. The strategy of Growth Mindset (as

opposed to Fixed Mindset) aims to build the child’s stamina for learning. The

ENGAGEMENT domain encompasses utilisation of activities/strategies that ‘grab

students’ attention’, ‘trigger interest’, prime them positively, and help them connect with

learning. The CHARACTER domain draws on Peterson & Seligman’s identification of 24

Significant Strengths and six corresponding Virtues (2004). Focusing on what is ‘right’

within the young person and group, strategies within this domain aim to help students to

articulate personal values, develop respect for others, learn to understand self and others,

and employ their strengths to future pathways.

The BSEM Training Program

Berry Street promotes and disseminates its Model of Education through the combination

of a comprehensive body of teaching resources and curriculum materials that are

underpinned by intensive teacher-training and in-service activity. The rigorous PD

19


program, which includes ongoing follow-up and interaction between Berry Street and

various schools, aims:

• to educate participants in re-engaging young people in learning, and progressing

them, through sustained cognitive and behavioural change;

• to develop the capacity of each participant to take strategies back to their

schools/classes and lead changes to school culture and teacher practice;

• to assist teachers in achieving a range of short and long-term educational

outcomes that include improved academic growth, school attendance and well-

being and a decrease in anti-social or challenging behaviours.

The PD sequence (most frequently

offered as a four day course or a suite of

after-hours in-service modules and

seminar/workshops, geared to the

specific setting) includes instruction in

relevant aspects of neuro-scientific

theory; “pedagogical connections to the

National Curriculum, and whole-school

practices for healing and growth”;

practical teaching strategies, skills and

techniques, including detailed advice

on structuring the school day

(reinforced through printed curriculum guides); and strategies for reflective personal

development.5 According to the senior training facilitator, the PD sequence provides

participants and trainers with a forum within which to (a) share research and strategies,

and (b) ensure that these strategies are relatable to self, classroom and whole school

situations.6

In the case of Collingwood College, the sequence has comprised four days of PD delivered

at the school (in December 2016, June and September 2017, and February 2018) plus the

equivalent of two days consultancy.

5 Berry Street Education Model. Frequently Asked Questions, www.childhoodinstitute.org.au/EducationModelFAQs (retrieved 5 May 2015) 6 Interview with Tom Brunzell.

http://www.childhoodinstitute.org.au/EducationModelFAQs

20


The BSEM at Collingwood College

Collingwood College

Collingwood College is one of the oldest

State schools in metropolitan Melbourne.

Originating as Vere Street National

School in 1882, its subsequent

incarnations over 135 years have

included Collingwood Domestic Arts,

Girls High and High Schools, and the

ground-breaking Collingwood Education

Centre in the 1980s. It became

Collingwood [P-12] College in 1990.

The school’s evolution having “long reflected the social dynamics of the suburbs it serves”,

the diversity of the district is replicated in both the current enrolment mix and in the

program alternatives on offer. Asked to estimate socio-economic ratios within the school

population, the Primary Principal described 55% of the current Prep year as meeting low

SES and disadvantage criteria; 50% are ESL students.

In addition to its standard mainstream Primary and Secondary streams, the College’s

specialist curriculum options have reportedly induced a growing number of families to

move into the district. School leadership, within a staff of eighty, comprises an overall

College Principal, Primary and Secondary Principals and four Leading teachers.

Two hundred students, including 50% of the Primary cohort, currently undertake the

College’s Steiner program, one of the few deliveries of that pedagogical approach on offer

in a State school setting. (Originally developed in Austria a century ago, Steiner schooling

aims to educate “the whole child” through specific focus on critical thinking, artistic

creativity and cultural enrichment). Starting at Prep, classes extend into Year 10.

Modifications in the middle years enable students to select pathways towards VCE.

Since 2008, Collingwood College has also offered students the Primary school (Prep –

Grade 4) option of the Reggio Emilia program. This team-taught educational approach,

which had its origins in post-Mussolini Italy, is student-led, inquiry-based and ‘village’-

21


oriented, aimed at enabling young people to question and think for themselves.7 In 2017,

approximately 60% of the Primary cohort attended Reggio classes, with a number of

parents choosing to travel from outside the LGA in order for their children to take part.

Secondary options include VCAL and VET while a shared class arrangement with Fitzroy

SC maximises VCE subject choices for Year 11 & 12 students.

Challenges faced by the school Senior staff note that recent years have seen a major turnaround in enrolments following

a challenging period of declining numbers. According to Secondary Years Principal Craig

Bradley, a rapid increase has reflected adoption of a deliberate policy of inclusion, based

on the precept “… everyone should be at school”. Taking an approach described as “warm

but strict … our only rules are be here on time, be nice to people, do your best … there’s no

uniform, the kids and teachers are on first name terms”, a changed direction at the school

has impacted on

o the suspension process (“going home if you’re behind in your work is

obviously useless … instead [now] you might be sitting for three days with

the teacher you’ve had conflict with – and catching up”); and

o enrolment and retention protocols (i.e. actively including students who

have been excluded from other settings – or might previously have been

excluded from Collingwood College. “For every ten that we let in … eight

have a story of what’s not worked. Out of the eight, maybe one won’t turn it

around. If we enrol eighty kids in a year, we might lose five [at most]”).

Accordingly, the College is now

o “Taking on kids we would not have done once [and] getting a good

reputation as a mainstream school that caters for all students - including kids

with problems or with additional needs such as mobility, ID or speech issues”,

and

o demonstrating marked improvements in annual data.

The 2017 enrolment of 850 (an increase of more than 100% since 2012) can be said to

reflect the school’s increasing success at student engagement on the one hand, and on the

other, both population growth within the LGA and growing levels of parental satisfaction

with diverse College curricula. School leadership specifically mention the collegiality and

skill of the teaching staff as key contributors to its positive outcomes.

7 For detail on the history and philosophy of the Reggio Emilia program, see Malaguzzi, L. (1998) History, ideas and basic philosophy: an interview with Lella Gandini, in The Hundred Languages of Children: the Reggio Emilia Approach – advanced reflections, 2nd. Edition, ed. C. Edwards, L. Gandini & G. Forman, Westport CT: Ablex Publishing, 49-98.

22


These changes notwithstanding, there is acknowledgement that the day-to-day demands

and pressures shared by most urban educational settings in the early 21st century

continue to be compounded at Collingwood College by its particular demographic. School

leadership cite the particular challenges of:

• Significant levels of High SES, on one hand, and of socio-economic disadvantage

on the other, within the student population. School leadership describes the

Collingwood College population as having “one of the highest levels of need in the

State”.

“We have Kids with huge issues … self-harm, school refusal, newly arrived

trauma, language barriers, family violence, mental health issues …both

parents and kids. We do a lot of family welfare … parents using our welfare

team to get mental health plans … Not a day goes by without us dealing

with issues. We get calls from DHS almost daily “.

• Under-resourcing by the Department of Education, resulting in an inadequate

level of specialist support. In 2017, for instance, Collingwood College has been

without the services of a speech pathologist. A psychologist, formerly based at

the school one day a week, currently provides consultancy only. Two part-time

social workers (1.0 EFT) are stretched to support students from Prep to Year 10.

School leadership suggests that the school’s public profile has been somewhat “skewed”

or “camouflaged” by (a) its willingness to explore alternative approaches (like Steiner

and Reggio Emilia) and (b) gentrification of some parts of the LGA. They point out that

their Steiner enrolments reflect neither the overall cultural or socio-economic diversity

of the district. (By way of example, one early years Steiner class of 24 children includes

only one EAL student and only three students from low SES families). In mainstream

classes, an average 54% of students are identified as disadvantaged. 23% of enrolments

are seen as ‘vulnerable across the board’.

Why the BSEM?

Awareness of the need to focus explicitly on domains of student well-being and self-

esteem, and on development of effective classroom behaviour and learning strategies,

prompted the school to introduce the PATHS program, at Prep-Year 6, in 2014. While

conceding the value of PATHS, as both “a good resource” and “a great program”, staff

have reported that its impact to date has been “limited” and that student and teacher

interest has been waning. Having identified a continuing need to address Student

resilience (i.e. in responding to the CTC survey), it was suggested that augmenting

PATHS with another approach might more effectively address the issue.

23


Enthusiastic feedback from individual teachers who had trained with Berry Street

together with the offer of co-funding by Yarra CTC provided the impetus to trial the

BSEM across the school. In the view of one teacher interviewee “the Berry Street stuff is

better than PATHS … more useful … [and] more accessible, more adaptable…. Loads of

activities can be slotted in and changed as needed”. Conversely, there has been some

feeling that PATHS and BSEM can be complementary, that “bits of both BSEM and PATHS

will be immensely useful” or that “Berry Street sits nicely with it [PATHS]”.

School leadership argues that, fundamental to whole-school roll-out of the BSEM, has

been recognition of

(a) the need for deeper teacher insight/understanding of the reality of many

students’ lives; and

(b) the need for an enlightened consistency across the school in the way students

are disciplined, engaged and monitored.

With a nod to the significant proportion of Collingwood College teachers who are recent

graduates, the Secondary Years Principal has observed:

“When I trained to be a teacher, I didn’t train to be a social worker, a psychologist, a care worker, a councillor … I spent the first six or seven years doing a pretty good job as a teacher … but still couldn’t figure out ‘why that kid was crazy’ … This was me saying OK - Let’s take a step back: everybody’s in the same boat, we don’t know why we keep having problems with little Johnny … [BSEM training] was the closest thing to PD that, even at the end of it if no one does any of these lessons, they can’t ever say ‘Well I wasn’t shown or I didn’t know why shouting at a kid that’s upset isn’t a good idea’ …. OK … It’s PD for teachers that you hope then some champions will come out and will start leading change within the classroom”.

24


Findings

Has the BSEM been implemented with high fidelity?

1. The Training: preparation of the teachers to implement the BSEM

Training in the BSEM has been provided on-site (i.e. at Collingwood College) by Berry

Street trainers. They confirm that school leadership’s strong commitment to

introducing the Model has been demonstrated by preparedness to facilitate

participation by all teaching personnel (including Education support staff and student

teachers). 80-plus staff members participated. (13 student leaders also took part in one

day – Day 3 – of the PD).

Citing instances at other schools where unforeseen disruptions have necessitated

running only shortened version variant of the full training program, Tom Brunzell notes

that: “At Collingwood we’ve been able to deliver the PD as it has been designed … and,

hence, maximise what we can offer … We have not had to change or abridge anything … ”

Consultation days, designed to provide time for requisite follow-up and individualised

feedback, included an ‘emergency’ session on anxiety-reduction strategies for VCE

teachers immediately prior to exams. In summary, the BSEM was delivered as designed

and at a high quality, with the school able and prepared to commit the necessary time and

resources to the PD.

The PD program has not been without minor challenges. Reference has been made in

interview to:

• Timetabling constraints that necessitated scheduling the first day’s training on

the last day of Term IV, i.e. immediately prior to school holidays. While

unanimously conceded to be “hardly ideal timing”, there was similar agreement

that the overall response has been very positive (indeed, more so than

anticipated by the trainers). The wisdom of Berry Street opting to provide a

‘refresher’ session on BODY, for newcomers and other interested teachers, at the

start of the school year, has been acknowledged.

• Less than ideal physical spaces for whole staff training sessions. Three sessions

were held in the school’s overly large performing arts centre, a traditional

theatrical space that tended to enable staff to spread out across the seating and

tacitly encourage a one-way performer to audience dynamic. Relocating the PD

to the school library (on Days 3 and 4) enabled participants to group themselves

around tables. While more conducive to interaction, the benefits were somewhat

compromised by the size of the space (eighty participants in a room capable of

comfortably accommodating 40).

25


Members of the training team note that these factors (plus the task of winning over

teachers who might – for various reasons - be “somewhat resistant”) “tested [our]

engagement skills”, but they acknowledge their usefulness (as with every delivery of the

training) in providing them with opportunities to reflect on ‘What is working well?’,

‘What could be more effective?’, etc. Emphasising that the BSEM PD program remains a

work in progress, and that “We want people to have an experience through the PD”. One

trainer observes:

“We have been constantly playing around with where & how we order the day so

that people have a peak of positive emotion …. Then they get deep then come back

up into a peak of positive emotion. We then do a ‘brain break’ … So we’re really

trying to get that rhythm …. And ultimately we’re trying to keep people in flow …

We’re trying to challenge them just enough where they’re challenged but not so

much where they’re feeling anxious or too little where they’re feeling bored ….

We’re trying to keep them in that peak performance zone”.

Trainer reports of the enthusiastic and positive responses they have encountered have

been strongly reinforced by feedback from school leadership and teachers (both in

interview and by survey), indicating:

(a) very high levels of satisfaction with the PD (see figures below), and

(b) general agreement that both style and content have successfully engaged

teachers ‘across the board’, i.e. have appealed to the school’s mix of very

experienced educators and relative newcomers to the profession.

Interviewees have applauded for the trainers for the user-friendly construction of each

training day, and for having paced the sessions in a way that “honours a human being’s

need to move”. The presentations themselves have been described as “highly” or “very

engaging”, “excellent”, “inspiring” and “absolutely outstanding”. One very senior

classroom teacher has observed: “Although I often think I have ‘seen it all before’, I’m

here to learn just like everybody else and being bored by [PD] is disappointing … there are

nuances in this [the BSEM] which actually add to what I’m doing in the classroom … and

that’s been wonderful”.

The Secondary Years Principal describes the overall “resonance” of the PD with staff as

“implicit”. Noting a strong bureaucratic focus in 2017 on changes to the Victorian

curriculum, he has observed: “So far no one has questioned why we’re doing [the BSEM]

rather than training about the curriculum … Clearly they prefer to be doing Berry Street”.

Notwithstanding some mild scepticism at the outset (“a bit of an air of we don’t need this

… we’re all different here and you’re trying to give us a common approach”), there is

agreement that a genuine openness to the Model was apparent by Day 2 of the training.

26


A survey of training participants (collected by the trainers at the final PD session)

strongly reinforces the positive interview feedback. Asked to reflect on ways in which

the PD had enriched both their learning and teaching, respondents made persistent

reference to coming away with:

• a better understanding of themselves

• new ways of thinking about challenging students

• heightened awareness of how to support and teach trauma-affected students

• feeling validated in their approaches and ideas they have implemented (“I’ve

picked up a few tricks since 1985!” was one response)

• a common language, enabling uniformity across the school when “identifying the

positive aspects of students and staff and how they enable growth”. ( “I am pleased

the school may now be on the same page” was one comment).

• understanding the importance of modelling desired behaviours

• understanding that every student has unique strengths and focusing on positive

rather than negative

• a multiplicity of supporting resources, practical and realistic ideas, strategies and

activities

Survey responses strongly confirmed interview reports of enthusiasm for the PD. Asked

to nominate the components of the BSEM they had found most useful in the classroom:

• 10% of respondents nominated ALL domains and elements; a further 42%

nominated several elements within each DOMAIN (eg. three out of four elements

within BODY; 5 elements within RELATIONSHIPS; three elements within

STAMINA; four within ENGAGEMENT; three within CHARACTER).

• 51% nominated elements within the ENGAGEMENT domain as ‘most useful’ in

the classroom(18% nominated Play Humour & Fun)

• 60% nominated elements within the CHARACTER domain

• 60% nominated elements within the BODY domain

• 60% nominated elements within the RELATIONSHIPS domain

• 70% of survey respondents nominated elements within the STAMINA domain as

most useful (of these, 36% nominated Growth Mindset and 36% Resilience)

While these figures testify to the capacity of concepts/ activities across ALL five

domains to engage the PD participants and to impact productively on their classroom

practice, it suggests that elements within STAMINA have been ‘most beneficial’ in

practice to date.

27


2. Program Roll-out

Notwithstanding trainer concern that the hiatus between the first training day (at the

end of Term 4, 2016) and roll-out of the BODY domain in class (at the start of the 2017

school year) might dilute enthusiasm for trying out the PD, school leadership was able

to report that “the work on the BODY is already having an impact” only a few weeks into

Term 1. While at that point greater enthusiasm was being expressed by younger staff (in

both age and experience) , instances were cited of more experienced teachers agreeing

that “this is good”. Interviews late in the year indicated that the BSEM had been

introduced to the students with varying levels of rigour; however “everyone has taken

on something … there have been lots of different starting points”.

It has been suggested that the non-mandatory way the Model was introduced to the

staff may have been an important factor in its generalised take-up. According to

Secondary Years Principal:

“… At the time when I was planning this - if I’d gone and said ‘We’re all gonna pick

this model up we’re all gonna do it’ … which is what we did with PATHS, there are

people that jump straight on the train, people that stick on the platform and people

that are going in totally the opposite direction. We did lots of training but PATHS

wasn’t a great success here … This [BSEM] is a different approach. No pressure if

you see something good you can use it … In talking it through in a different setting,

people are just making that jump”.

The key challenge in rolling-out the BSEM has been incorporating content into already

very tight timetables. Lack of time has limited opportunities for the classroom

observation component of the training (for instance). The secondary school principal,

who has taken on responsibility for the BSEM in addition to his general administrative

duties, highlights the desirability (in future) of releasing a teacher part-time to co-

ordinate delivery and monitoring of the program. (See Recommendations).

Primary teacher interviewees have reported finding the BSEM highly compatible with

both the Steiner & Reggio Emilia philosophies. For instance:

“A lot of things that they identify as Best Practice, Steiner teachers already do - loads

of movement, rhythmic activity, breaking up the day . Initially, there was some

feeling among teachers in the younger [Steiner] classes, that the BSEM was offering

nothing new …. because ‘I’m already doing it’ … What they’ve found the Model gives

us [however] are the more explicit activities like De-escalation charts and Safety

plans, and [the value of] working on those with particular students” [Steiner teacher]

28


“The BSEM in Reggio aligns thoroughly with Reggio … We have lots of meetings …

discussions about opinions, backing up opinions, constructing theories and

explaining them to other people. We’re already talking about resilience, about

meeting people you might not want … how to deal with these situations” [Reggio

Emilia teacher]

Teachers within the Primary classes appear to have been at an advantage in rolling out

the BSEM. “Developing relationships is much simpler if you have the kids the whole time”,

acknowledges one teacher who has utilised class time previously allocated to PATHS (“so

it’s constant”) to deliver activities within the Model. At the same time, it should be noted

that a number of Secondary teachers have been enterprising in using Home group time

(30 minutes each morning) as their delivery vehicle. Inspired by the first day of training,

and keen to make their class spaces more inviting, two Middle Years teachers shopped

for rocking chairs and set up a ‘chill out’ corner before Term 1 started. In working

through the BSEM domains, they note that “jumping back and forth” (i.e. continually

revisiting the BODY domain) has been effective: “If the kids are anxious about something

… if exams are coming up [for example] we go back to those [early] strategies … talk about

de-escalation, how they might be feeling, use the charts, maybe some Mindful colouring”.

Enthusiastic take-up of the BSEM by these and other Middle Years staff has prompted the

establishment of ‘Mindfulness Monday’ for the school’s Year 9 cohort.

“Monday is a really good day for it … it brings the kids back into routine for the week.

It took two terms for the kids to understand … and at the start they were a bit

sceptical [but] because we’ve been consistent with it, they now know they’ll be

meditating and calming down for 25 minutes on a Monday”.

Unsurprisingly, opportunities have been more limited for single subject teachers. (“There

are just not enough hours in the day” was one lament). However, staff report that

‘Brainbreaks’ are being used across the school (“Sometimes when I think they’re not

getting a lot of what I’m telling them , I think ‘let’s do the classical [Brainbreak] thing …”).

BSEM components have also been part-and-parcel of a strong emphasis on Mental Health

& Well-being in the Secondary Health & PE syllabus.

29


Has the BSEM impacted on Teacher Practice?

1. Impact on Professional Learning

Having praised the engagement capacity of the BSEM training, interviewees likewise

confirmed its value as Professional Learning in the areas of traumatology and

alternative pedagogies. For instance:

• Echoing comments made by graduate teachers at other settings8, interviewees described

the training and the suite of reference booklets as “a godsend to young teachers”, in many

cases unprepared by their “patchy” undergraduate training or limited experiences on

practicum for “behaviour management … [and] the whole pastoral care thing”.

• Perceived as having been highly productive in increasing the knowledge of relatively

new practitioners, the BSEM has also been described as “still enriching for more

experienced teachers”.

“I think that every teacher can continuously build in these things and revisit them

constantly in order to just make the experience for the kids outstanding …”

A recurrent theme at interview was the value of the BSEM in encouraging and

promoting personal reflection. One teacher expressed particular pleasure at the way the

training and implementation of the BSEM were validating her practice and skill level.

“ I started to cotton on to this [trauma-informed approach] a few years ago and little by little build it into my practice … I’ve loved going to training and feeling reinforced by it …[It’s great] When there is something that comes along and pats me on the back but also gives me a few more things to think about … There’s always more you can do - and that’s what makes me an excellent teacher, not just a mediocre teacher”.

2. Changes to teacher practice

Reference was made to the value of BSEM training in providing all practitioners - and

not just those new to alternative pedagogies - with

o a “common language”, i.e. immediately understandable terminology which

can usefully be applied to both innovative curriculum elements and “stuff

already being done”; and

o A readily accessible tool-box of practical strategies, activities and ideas.

8 Stokes & Turnbull, p.32

30


Interviewees provided several examples of changes to their own practice through

utilising this terminology and toolbox that have proved beneficial. Two Secondary

teacher interviewees, for instance, reported having immediately introduced the BODY

domain at the start of Term 1, and noted the efficacy of compiling de-escalation charts,

instituting regular brainbreaks and facilitating discussions around physical responses to

stress at a time when

“… They’re in a new class … some teachers are new … it’s a new year … some have

been separated from their friends … NAPLAN is coming up … and they’re dealing

with lots of things … The start of the year is hard and [these activities] did make it

easier for everyone”.

Other examples were provided by (a) a Secondary English teacher who reported:

“I had a double English … and I could see the kids thought ‘This is hard!’ We were

doing Silent reading & silent writing. We’re not a silent class by any means [and] I

could see them struggling. Halfway through I said; ‘Everybody on your feet – and

we did the one-two-three [thumb pointing activity ] … ‘Turn to your partners and

do the same’ . It was just a five minute thing … They just needed that UP”.

(b) Another Secondary teacher who noted:

“Whenever I start something new with the students that I know they’re going to

find a challenge, we have a whole Growth MINDSET lesson to really push them

forward. Growth Mindset was really been taken on”.

(c) a Primary teacher who reported:

“I [used] Brainbreaks in class during this year’s NAPLAN ... – quietly for the kids

who needed it – in Year 5 you can tell kids who are crumbling … the impromptu

feeling ‘this kid’s not managing’ – I Can’t tell you what they would have got

without – but [Brainbreaks] allowed them to let go that anxiety and keep going –

and to come out feeling like they’d given their best. … I [certainly] would do more

brainbreaks next time”

And (d) another [Early] Primary teacher who cited the value of asking students to

record reading (including Silent reading) milestones in a reading log (“That really

pushes them forward”).

3. Changes in Student-Teacher relationships

While all interviewees expressed confidence in the quality of their interactions with

their students prior to the BSEM, there was clear recognition that BSEM training had

31


reinforced their insight into the students’ needs and how best to solidify the teacher-

student relationship. According to one teacher: “When a child is talking – I remind

myself: it’s because he or she needs to talk … and I need to focus on what else might be

happening ”.

Others highlighted the usefulness to their day-to-day interactions of:

• the BSEM concept of Unconditional Positive Regard:

o “Unconditional Positive Regard just means ‘how can that kid get under your

skin? – he’s funny and he’s quirky and individual and by just using

strategies to manage how he is in the room he just gets to be himself”.

o “Every child has a right to be here and they all have something to offer and

it’s my job to find out what that is. So if they’re shouting - that’s not cool and

that needs to stop - but I can’t write them off. They definitely have

something to offer … Sometimes it’s really hard to find and it takes a while -

but it’s there”.

• And the flow-on benefits of facilitating a calm and focused learning environment.

Confessing that “as a beginning teacher, I remember getting angry about

everything”, one teacher acknowledged:

“It protects me from so much frustration … It puts into words what I’ve

been trying to say ‘I respect you too much to argue too much to argue about

whether or not that’s a hat ‘… Far out, that’s magic … Now my blood

pressure doesn’t rise … I have more positive feelings. I love my job and

[reflection] allows me to keep doing that and not feeling like ‘I’m trapped

with this child and I can’t get them to learn’ and that’s incredibly

frustrating’. And that is important because it protects teachers”.

Several interviewees stressed the importance of continuing to maintain the momentum

with regards to the BSEM. A large sector of the staff having been exposed to “new

material”, one teacher stressed the imperative of ensuring that the PD be reinforced

through rigorous classroom application: “When the training finishes, we can’t just let it

peter out …This is actually the bread and butter of what we do …”.

32


Has the BSEM impacted on Student Engagement, Well-being and Achievement?

1. Understanding of BSEM domains and Increased Self-awareness

Just as teachers have differed in the ways (and extent to which) they have introduced

BSEM components into the classroom, so have they differed in what they have chosen to

call the program. In some Primary classes, for instance, the children’s previous

exposure to PATHS, has enabled teachers to continue to refer to activities or lessons

with ‘We’re doing some PATHS work now’. One Reggio Emilia teacher has found that

grouping BSEM components under the umbrella of ‘Being Calm and Kind’ has been

effective. Alternatively, some classes group such concepts as ‘being Present Centred

Grounded’ or ‘de-escalation’ as ‘Well-being stuff’, while others (generally in Secondary)

“definitely know they’re doing Berry Street if they are having a [brain] break”.

Regardless (and notwithstanding that primary teaching staff have had greater scope to

reinforce BSEM messages with their students than have their secondary counterparts)

student focus groups near the end of the pilot indicated that a number of BSEM terms,

learned at the outset of the pilot, were continuing to resonate with young people in both

Primary and Secondary grades. Focus group participants specifically confirmed having

“taken on”:

• ‘Growth Mindset’ (“I usually try to do new things … sometimes I can’t actually do

some things but I usually try”),

• Resilience (“If you can’t do something well, you try again, you don’t just give up

and go home” or “being able to [withstand] some pressures … pick yourself up

[after a setback]”), and

• Mindfulness (variously defined as “really thinking about what you’re doing [like]

mindfully putting things away …”, “awareness” or “being in yourself”);

• Present Centred Grounded (‘being calm … being peaceful’) and

• Zen Zone (“being calm”, “being Present Centred Grounded”, “[in] a comfortable

space”)

However, it should be noted that the amount of time dedicated to BSEM and its concepts

varied amongst teachers.

2. Impact of BSEM on Student well-being

In terms of the BSEM assisting young people in development of coping or adaptive

behaviour, Years 5/6 students confirmed the usefulness of :

33


• Mood charts (filled in twice a day – “up for not stressed, down for stressed”) in

helping alert teachers when they felt unready for learning;

• De-escalation charts (“like a de-stress chart … tells you how to calm down”);

• SAFETY PLANS. Individual Safety plans were described as including such

strategies as

“Writing down who you can talk to [if stressed or anxious] … mum, dad, my

older sister, the teacher”

“Punch the pillow, Watch YouTube, hang out with my [older] brother”

“If I’m really anxious – I would sit down and watch TV … to take my mind

off it … not just sit and think and make it worse”

“Try reasoning, and then if it doesn’t get any better, go to the teacher and

ask ‘Can I have some time out’”.

• A variety of Brainbreaks - including short silent meditation sessions as part of

home group (duration decreasing over time as students learned to ‘settle down’

more quickly) and ‘Mindful drawing’ - had been “enjoyed” by the students and

were described as both “a good idea” and a way to “focus”.

Year 7/8 students echoed their Primary counterparts in citing the practical value of

both Safety Plans (expressing confidence that they had people they could go to in a time

of crisis or difficulty) and Brain breaks (notwithstanding a little uncertainty about the

term, noting that some teachers “are pretty into that stuff”, they reported having tried

and utilised various breathing exercises, ‘counting our pulses’, variations on ‘silent ball’,

thumb pointing, etc).

Overall, student feedback indicates a clear understanding and recognition of the link

between stress and not being able to learn effectively, and associated individualised

‘calming’ strategies. For example:

• One Year 5/6 student, who admitted to sometimes “losing it” at school (“[Some-

times] I can’t control myself … Last time I got [really] angry … I stormed out of the

room but came back [too early] and punched the guy”), conceded that becoming

Present Centred Grounded (defined by him as “calming down … being ready for

work”) would have been a better option. “Next time [he suggested] I’ll go

somewhere where no one’s near me and kick a soccer ball as hard as I can”).

• Other students cited the usefulness of “finding your own space” , “listening to a lot

of music”, “sometimes doing nothing”, “using a comfy chair at home” or “just going

34


for a walk … If you’re stressed about something and its right in front of you can’t

really stop and think about it. You need to go somewhere else”. Comments

included:

“If I do get stressed I have my own way of dealing with it … look at what’s

making me stressed, think about it and try and get rid of it”

“I’ve seen our teacher – if someone is stressed, they move them, deal with

them and talk to them”.

It should be noted that all focus group participants reported liking school – or, more

accurately, their current school. While they hesitated to call their respective class or

home-rooms calm, they described them as unstressed environments where students

generally got along well together. Focus group participants uniformly cited positive

relationships with their class or home-group teachers.

3. Impact of the BSEM on Student achievement & engagement

It would be a vast oversimplification, inaccurate (and, indeed, too early) to attempt to

directly ascribe positive shifts in Collingwood College’s annual school data to BSEM

training and program dissemination. Rather, it is generally agreed, roll-out of the BSEM

has been just one contributing factor within the ‘bigger picture’. Its introduction has

coincided with – and been part of – the school’s strategic focus on improving student

performance against statewide averages (specifically annual AUSVELS, NAPLAN and

SASS results), and attendance and school completion data. Targets set in the school’s

latest Strategic plan (2015-18) included such projections as:

• A 10% increase by 2018 in the number of students performing at A or B levels in

AUSVELS

• 85% of students to show medium to high growth in NAPLAN by 2018

• Student attendance to increase by 2018 (as evidenced by absences falling below

the state average)

• Annual SASS results to demonstrate improved student satisfaction (at or above

the 75th percentile by 2018) within such Engagement and Well-being variables as

school connectedness, learning confidence, student safety and classroom

behaviour.

As regards Student achievement, progress towards these goals, two years into the four

year time-frame, was confirmed in the 2016 Annual Report: The Report noted (for

example) that, in terms of state averages:

• AusVELS results were within the middle 60% of Victorian schools (and similar

35


• to like schools)

• NAPLAN Year 5 results for Reading were within the top 20% of schools,

Numeracy in the middle 60% of schools (in both cases higher than like schools)

• NAPLAN Year 7 was well above state median in both Reading and Numeracy.

• NAPLAN Year 9 results for Reading and Numeracy were above the state median

In terms of Engagement & Well-being, the 2016 Annual Report confirmed that results

for Connectedness to School and Student Safety variables on SASS 2016 were within

the middle band (at Primary level) and within the top 20% of schools (at Secondary

level). The following year SASS 2017 confirmed that Strategic plan targets were being

met, with results for such variables as Effective classroom behaviour, Resilience,

Connectedness, School safety Self-regulation and Confidence all at or above (in some

cases significantly above) the 75th percentile.

While more than one interviewee suggested that these changed need to be viewed with

some caution (given the socio-economic diversity of the student mix), improvements in

annual data would seem to reflect a school culture open to alternative pedagogies and

innovation. Receptiveness to the Berry Street philosophy is evidenced by the school’s

previous subscription to the PATHS program, and by such interview comments as

“I feel like it already is how we do it at Collingwood”

“I feel we’re a school that [already] had Mindfulness and all those kind of things as

a focus”

“The things [teachers] were already focused on … [the training] reinforced that and

emphasised that”

“I think the people who work here are really passionate about what they do, &

about social justice, diversity and all those underlying values … I don’t think they’d

be here if they didn’t … and I think that’s what connects them with Berry Street…

that’s what’s special about this school”.

It should be noted that the Primary Principal anticipates a further – and marked -

upward shift in Engagement & Well-being in the next set of SASS data (2018), and he

feels confident in drawing a link between that anticipated change and staff enthusiasm

for the BSEM

“It fits well with both Steiner and Reggio … If the staff are enjoying … and the kids

are responding, it is having an impact”.

36


Has the BSEM impacted on school-wide practice? While the take-up of BSEM has varied from teacher to teacher, school leadership believes that the

impact of the Model is being felt across Collingwood College. According to interviewees:

“[There’s] Lots happening school wide! Berry Street features in all classrooms across the

school”.

“The training was a breath of fresh air ... Every teacher in the school has one of those kids

that the PD was talking about. And I think everyone sat there and said ‘I know who that is’

and now I know how I can help them succeed”.

The Primary Principal reports that the BSEM is already “heavily embedded” in the school’s

strategic planning, and that this has begun to “filter down to teacher performance plans. … All

staff should have a goal that relates back to learnings from the BSEM”. In the Primary classes,

inclusion of Berry Street learnings and practice on the fortnightly agenda for Learning

Communities (i.e. Professional Learning Teams) meetings (“where teachers discuss and reflect

on both BSEM and our PATHS program”) is reportedly helping align delivery of Model

components as children progress through the year levels.

It is conceded that take-up of BSEM elements has been strongest at Primary years. Even so,

interviewees have noted having witnessed “a lot of work in [Secondary] home groups” or having

observed classes work on character strengths. While it is probably too early to see formal

alignment of BSEM content from Year 7 to 12, it is noted that, at a micro-level, Year 9 teachers

who adopted the BSEM with particular enthusiasm in 2017, have reportedly shared their

learnings at transition meetings in the hope that Year 10 home group teachers will “take a similar

approach”. If so, they are confident that the “benefits will travel through”.

In acknowledging of the BSEM’s wider usefulness/applicability, interview and post-PD survey

responses included:

“… while it’s about strategies for helping trauma-affected children engage in education, it

benefits all the children”.

“There are a lot of individual students here with complex backgrounds. [Because of the PD]

teachers can learn how to work with these students – using a program that would have

benefits for all students”.

“I like the focus on children in most need, but that it’s flexible enough to apply to all,

including different classrooms, programs, etc”.

37


A summary of Challenges & Enablers in delivery of the BSEM

Conclusion: Where to next?

With well-received training having inspired and/or encouraged BSEM-related activity

across the school, the Primary Principal suggests that the biggest challenge ahead will

be keeping up the momentum. With a staff allocation unable to stretch to a full-time

Well-being co-ordinator (with specific release time to co-ordinate the Pilot) chief

responsibility for the BSEM in 2017 was taken on by the Secondary Principal. Given the

multiple other demands on his time, this was a less than ideal situation (see

recommendations). Given the need to support staff in keeping abreast of current

research in their individual Berry Street ‘journeys’, the need to facilitate formal

integration of BSEM into the whole-school syllabus, and the need to ensure that new

Challenges Enablers Ensuring that teachers are fully briefed

on the model and are comfortable in

utilising strategies and activities.

Rigorous PD in Berry Street principles,

supported by curriculum booklets

Co-ordination of the program in-

school by a teacher committed to the

BSEM philosophy (and with sufficient

time to provide necessary support)

Refresher sessions and follow-up

consultancies by berry street staff

Accommodating the training program

within very busy school timetables

Refresher sessions and whole school

commitment to maximising impact of

BSEM

Ensuring suitable accommodation for PD A space that encourages interaction

and engagement (At Collingwood

College, this involved relocating the PD

to the school library)

Inconsistencies in BSEM delivery Ensuring whole-school roll-out

supported by Berry Street refresher

sessions, regular staff & team

meetings, and co-ordination by senior

teacher

Difficulties in Integrating BSEM processes

into everyday teaching

Ensuring whole-school roll-out of the

Model

Embedding BSEM into the school

curriculum

Ensuring effective timetabling of training

sessions (In some instances, training has

taken place late afternoon or immediately

before school vacations)

The high quality of the PD and the

capacity of the Berry Street presenters

to engage training participants

38


staff are able to ‘immerse’ themselves in BSEM principles, it has been suggested (in

interview and survey):

a. that Collingwood College continue its engagement with Berry Street

through refresher sessions, individual consultations, etc. (See

Recommendations). “There are not enough hours in the day”, according to

school leadership, “But it’s not an impossible task … Our immediate goal is

keeping the BSEM on the agenda and ensuring it is firmly embedded in our

classrooms”. ; and

b. that the school attempt, where possible, to ensure that co-ordination of

BSEM activities is a formal part of an appropriately credentialed Leading

Teacher’s workload.

Taking the longer term view, and noting that introducing the BSEM has been the first of

a number of linked interventions under the College-CTC umbrella, the Secondary

Principal has observed:

“In two years’ time when anybody walks in, no one will remember why we’re a

BSEM school … it’s just the way it is, and it’ll be in the DNA. Now every new

teacher gets a sheet of paper … [telling them] that’s how we deal with behaviour at

this school, …that’s how we deal with keeping kids controlled, getting them centred

… that’s how we do it round here … You change your behaviours to fit in … If you’re

not told, down the line that’s where you get conflict … We’ll get to the point where

everyone who starts gets inducted into BSEM … You should be able to walk

through and hear ‘We use the BSEM model … every Monday we do mindfulness’”.

Recommendations

Feedback from interviewees and through a post-training survey (distributed and

collected by Berry Street staff) confirms the author’s assessment that:

(a) the BSEM has been implemented with high fidelity at Collingwood College

(b) the BSEM has impacted positively on teacher practice at the school

(c) the BSEM is impacting positively on student well-being, engagement and

achievement

(d) [while it is still early days] there are indications the BSEM is impacting

positively on school-wide practice.

39


In view of the overall success of the BSEM Pilot in these regards, and following discussion

with Yarra CTC as to future direction of the initiative, the following actions are

recommended:

a. That, in order to ensure to maximise the efficiency, consistency and rigour

of Collingwood College’s ongoing subscription to the BSEM, that

responsibility for co-ordination & implementation be made a designated

part of a suitably-qualified Leading Teacher’s role;

b. Given strong interest (in survey responses) in further access to trauma-

informed educational research and the sharing of ‘coalface’ experiences

and strategies, that Collingwood College be encouraged to become involved

in Berry Street’s Alumni program;

c. That new staff be provided with the opportunities to complete Berry Street

training;

d. That the school progress its relationship with Berry Street through

commissioning follow-up and refresher sessions;

e. Interest having been expressed in extending BSEM training to students,

that student leaders be invited to participate in future follow-up sessions

or refresher seminars. (While group of secondary students did participate

in one session in 2017, staff changes and timetabling constraints ruled out

further involvement in the PD);

f. Given the recent timing of the Pilot that the school continue to monitor

annual SASS data and other achievement indicators in the interests of

assessing longer-term impact of the BSEM.

In looking at the ‘bigger picture’, i.e. possible expansion of CTC’s BSEM partnerships into

other schools, and based on findings from multiple implementations of the BSEM, it is

recommended that:

• Participating schools seek to ensure school-wide (rather than sectional or year

level) implementation of the BSEM. (This enables integration of strategies,

activities and BSEM elements into school curricula and facilitates alignment of

BSEM elements across year levels. Likewise it helps promote consistency of

approach across the school spectrum);

• Further to the above, that in taking on the BSEM, the school commit (a) to ensuring

ALL staff are able to undertake the PD and training component, and (b) that

40


sufficient resources and time are allocated to enable Berry Street trainers to

maximise their delivery of the PD content;

• Where possible, the school make every effort to ensure that a dedicated teacher,

with specifically-allocated time-release, etc, take on responsibility for overall co-

ordination of the BSEM.

References Brunzell, T. (2014). Trauma Informed Positive Education at the Berry Street School. Melbourne: Berry Street Victoria. Retrieved from www.berrystreet.org.au 28 April 2015 Brunzell, T., Abbott, L. & Sheehan, R. (eds) (2015) The Berry Street Education Model: Curriculum and Classroom Strategies, Melbourne: Berry Street Victoria. Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. (2015). Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected students: A new approach to healing and growth in the classroom. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 1, 3-9. Stokes, H. & Turnbull, M. (2016) Evaluation of the Berry Street Education Model: Trauma-informed positive education enacted in mainstream schools, Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, University of Melbourne

http://www.berrystreet.org.au/

41


APPENDIX

Post-PD survey collected from CC teacher participants in the Berry Street training

a report for the city of yarra march 2018...ctc ltd, a joint initiative of the royal children’s...

Documents