See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324964911

Monitoring the Implementation of the Schools Positive

Behaviour Management Programme (SPBMP) in
Barbados TEST

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 564

3 authors:

Ian Marshall Grace-Anne Jackman

University of the West Indies at Cave Hill, Barbados University of the West Indies at Cave Hill, Barbados
8 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claudette Fongkong-Mungal
University of the West Indies at Cave Hill, Barbados
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Marshall on 05 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 161

TEST
Monitoring the Implementation of the Schools
Positive Behaviour Management Programme
(SPBMP) in Barbados

Ian Marshall
Grace-Anne Jackman
Claudette Fongkong-Mungal
The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus

Abstract

The purpose of the research was to monitor the roll out of the
Schools Positive Behaviour Management Programme (SPBMP),
an approach which emphasises the reinforcement of positive
behavioural norms as a means of building student-centred
school environments. At each of the 16 schools (10 primary,
6 secondary) in the sample, data were collected from five sources:
surveys with a sample of teachers, one-on-one interviews with
principals and School Focal Points (SFPs), a school audit, and
classroom observations.
The findings revealed that the stakeholders perceived their schools
as reflecting SPBMP best practices particularly in the areas of
having welcoming and supportive school environments. Most
stakeholders reported that student councils were established in
the schools, however many of them were not actively involved in
school-wide decision making. In the majority of schools,
stakeholders reported use of positive behaviour management
strategies, such as referral systems for inappropriate behaviour,
documented codes of conduct, and use of non-physical methods
of punishment. One main recommendation was for schools
to promote greater levels of student and parent participation
in decision making particularly at the curricular and
administrative levels.

Keywords: effective schools, child-friendly, positive behaviour management,

Barbados

Journal of Education and Development in the Caribbean

Vol. 17 No. 1 2018 • ISSN 0799-5180
162 MARSHALL ET AL.

Introduction
TEST

Over the past decade the provision of quality education has

been the main focus of international stakeholders such as United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
This focus has given birth to the Education for All (EFA) Goals
and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), both of which
articulate the reduction of poverty and improved quality of life via
the provision of quality education. The UNICEF/Child-Friendly
School manual defines quality education as education that works
for every child and enables all children to achieve their full potential
(UNICEF, 2009). To achieve this, UNICEF and its partners have
developed the Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) model, which is
premised on the view that each child has a right to education and
therefore all schools should operate in the best interests of the
child. As such, schools should provide, among other things, a safe,
healthy, and protective environment, a cadre of quality teachers,
and conducive conditions for optimum teaching and learning.
As part of its mandate the UNICEF office for the Eastern
Caribbean area has been supporting the Ministries of Education
in the Eastern Caribbean in the integration of CFS principles in
their respective schools. Work started on positive behavioural
management in schools as a direct response to the governments’
concerns about the violence and discipline in schools. In 2007,
through a partnership agreement, UNICEF, the Barbados Education
Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Innovation
(MESTI), and the Barbados Union of Teachers (BUT) launched
the Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) initiative. By 2015, all schools
on the island (69 primary and 23 secondary) had introduced the
CFS initiative, which was later renamed the Schools Positive
Behaviour Management Programme (SPBMP). To date there
has not been a comprehensive assessment of the implementation
process. This paper therefore represents the first steps to fill that
void. To this end, the purpose of this research, funded by UNICEF,
was to collect empirical data which focused on monitoring the
implementation of SPBMP in Barbados, with a view to providing
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 163

information on stakeholders’ TEST

perceptions of four key features of
SPBMP in their schools.

Theoretical Framework
To guide the research, the authors opted to use the child-
friendly-schools framework. According to Bernard (1999)
the child-friendly schools framework is grounded in the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child and as such dovetails with
the notion of providing equal opportunities for all children. The
framework seeks to promote quality in education by focusing
on quality learners, content, teaching-learning processes,
learning environments, and outcomes. More specifically, the
framework emphasizes the use of positive behaviour management
strategies, child-centered classrooms, parental and community
involvement, protective school environments, health and family
life and enhanced student participation. To a large extent the foci
of child-friendly schools are also in sync with the literature on
effective schools. The earlier work of Lezotte (1991) and the
more recent work by Shannon and Bylsma (2007) speak to the
central idea of organizing schools and engaging stakeholders,
internal and external to the school, for the effective delivery of
student outcomes.

Children the Focus of Education

The idea that children should be the focus of education and

that their needs should drive the educational process can be
traced to philosophers such as John Dewey, who is regarded as
the chief proponent of progressivism and Jean Piaget, the chief
proponent of constructivism. According to Dewey (1933), children
learn by doing, problem solving, and critical and reflective
thinking. Educators who followed this approach emphasized
the development of social skills through cooperative learning,
group work and projects. Piaget (1973) advanced the view that
knowledge is actively created rather than received passively from
the environment, and that knowledge is constructed, hence the
164 MARSHALL ET AL.

term “constructivism”. Constructivists

TEST believe that knowledge
is created through the interaction of social processes, interaction
with the environment and self-reflection (Bhutto & Chapra, 2013).
In terms of the classroom, research by Lester and Onore
(1990) suggested that the organization and management of a
class can contribute appreciably to the creation of a classroom
environment that promotes constructivist learning. Such classroom
environments reflect an understanding of the importance of
allowing children to engage in experiential learning at the
individual, group, and whole-class levels, as well as the need
for students to be empowered to make decisions about learning
and to engage in the exchange of ideas. Moreover, the focus is
on student learning rather than on teacher performance (Dewey,
1916; Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Lester & Onore, 1990; McNeil,
1986). Viewed from another perspective, within a constructivist
or student-centered paradigm, problems are structured around
core ideas to provide a framework to gather information and build
knowledge. Teachers therefore engage students by deliberately
designing classroom activities with the students’ needs in mind
and are able to guide the differentiation of individual learning
(Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004).
Developing simultaneously with the notion of child-centered
learning, although not at the same pace, was the view that
children’s education should be based on a human rights platform.
This started with the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child
(1924), which in turn resulted in an assemblage of other laws
and conventions, such as The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), the Education for All Goals (1990), the Salamanca
Statement (1994), the Dakar Framework for Action (2000), and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA,
2004). These legislative frameworks helped to fuel the demand
for education systems that provide for all children irrespective of
gender, cognitive or physical ability, ethnicity, or religion. This
focus on inclusive education as a right of every child therefore
became one of the key planks of the child-friendly model.
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 165

TEST
Evolution of the Concept of Child-Friendly/
Effective Schools

From as early as 1979, Edmonds, and later Lezotte (1991),

introduced the notion of effective schools and identified what
became known as the seven correlates of effective schools.
According to these researchers, these key components included
a clear and focused mission, high expectations for all students,
strong instructional leadership, a safe and orderly environment,
positive home-school relationships, frequent monitoring of student
progress, an equal opportunity to learn, and increased student
time on tasks (Lezotte, 1991). Over time, other researchers such
as Shannon and Bylsma (2007), expanded the ideas of Lezotte
(1991) into the concept of “high performing” schools. Though
significant, the core elements remained the same. The notion
of effective schools also gained currency with children’s rights
advocates who incorporated the concept of child-friendly schools
with the core ideas of effective schools.
According to Chabbott (2004), after a consultative process
which included representatives from Central and Eastern Europe
and the Eastern Asian and Pacific Region, UNICEF produced the
Child-Friendly manual (UNICEF, 2009) which advocated three
core foci as follows:

1. Inclusiveness: The school environment is welcoming for

all children and families and school leadership and teachers
recognize and accommodate students’ differing learning
needs.

2. Child-Centeredness: The school staff prioritizes students’

emotional and physical well- being, builds relationships
with students that are positive and respectful, and ensures
that students are actively engaged in their learning.

3. Democratic Participation: The family and community

members are actively involved in the school and students
are engaged in school activities and decision making
through a formalized student government or council.
166 MARSHALL ET AL.

TESTSchool
Hallmarks of a Child-Friendly

For the purposes of this paper the concept of child-friendly

schools has been operationalized using the following four
indicators, each of which is discussed below.

1. Warm and Welcoming Environment. The research on warm

and welcoming school environments indicates that the
creation of such requires that principals pay attention to
in-school and out-of-school concerns such as safety, anti-
bullying policies, evacuation and safety drills, and basic
protocols to govern how stakeholders access the school
plant. A safe school environment includes, among other
things, an effective anti-bullying policy that is practiced,
school leadership that supports staff, students and parents
alike, community and parental involvement, a culture of
cooperation where social and emotional skills are taught,
effective school communication, a functioning safety
committee, an established safety-emergency preparedness
plan, and early identification and intervention for at-risk
students (Lezotte, 1991).

2. Positive Behaviour Management/Discipline. In the

literature, two broad approaches to student discipline have
gained currency in the last decade, School-Wide Positive
Behaviour Supports (SWPBS) or teacher-centered
approaches, and Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
or child-centered approaches. The focus of SEL is the
development of classrooms which emphasize emotional
intelligence themes such as self-awareness and social
interaction. The idea is that if students are taught to be
more self-aware and self-managed then there should be less
need for rewards and punishments, which in turn should
result in fewer conduct problems and improved academic
performance (Osher, Bear, Sprague & Doyle, 2010). On
the other hand, Bosworth and Judkins (2014) argued
for the adoption of a school-wide and comprehensive
approach. To this end, they assert that building a positive
MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 167

school environment is TEST

achieved by constantly reinforcing
positive behavioural norms conceptualized as School-Wide
Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS).
In accordance with this view, Fallon and McCarthy
(2014) argued that SWPBIS is a useful framework
consisting of effective intervention practices that have
been linked to improved student behaviour and academic
achievement as well as staff perceptions of school safety.

Regardless of the approach adopted, researchers such as

Sugai (2003) strongly recommend the creation and use of
a school-wide behaviour plan as a critical component in
the effective implementation of any positive behavioural
programme. In addition, Irvin et al. (2006) also commend
the use of office referrals as “a valuable data source both
in identifying school-wide patterns of problem behaviors
and for monitoring individual student interventions”
(p. 10).

3. Inclusive Practice. This has become one of the core pillars

of the CFS educational model. It is grounded in the principle
of the least restrictive educational environment which
states essentially that to the maximum extent appropriate,
all children should be educated with their peers, and
that any exclusion or creation of separate classes should
only occur if the nature of a student’s disability makes it
impossible to deliver education in a mainstream context
satisfactorily. However, the literature on the practicality
of operationalizing this principle is divided. On one
hand there are “inclusionists” who advocate that children
with disabilities can benefit from instruction in regular
classrooms; however, they also accept that even with the
best teachers and use of instructional best practices, it is
impossible to meet the specialized instructional needs of
all students in a mainstream classroom (Baker & Zigmond,
1990; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992). On the other
hand, there are the “full inclusionists” who believe that
168 MARSHALL ET AL.

regardless of the nature of the disability, the child should

TEST
be educated in a mainstream classroom, even in cases
where the student presents with severe disabilities, since
every child has the right to be educated with their peers
(Lipsky & Gartner, 1991; Stainback & Stainback, 1992).

However, as articulated by Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) limits

on the ability of regular classrooms to meet the needs of
students without disabilities already exist, therefore, if one
were to move to full inclusion the challenge for teachers
would become even greater. Furthermore, after school
leaders are able to agree on the model of inclusion to be
implemented, they are then faced with other challenges
associated with operationalization of that model. One
such challenge that exists in Korean schools is the
misunderstanding on the part of teachers and principals
of what inclusion is, and the attendant resistance spawned
by such misunderstanding (Kim, 2013). Other common
challenges include: the lack of specific training for teachers
and principals in inclusive education (Christenson, Siegel-
Robertson, Williamson, & Hunter, 2013), teacher and
principal attitudes towards inclusion (Meijer, Soriano,
& Watkins, 2003), and a lack of adequate institutional
resources and supports (Thousand & Villa, 2000).

4. Student Participation. Sinclair (2004) and Whitty and

Wisby (2007) advanced five reasons for involving students
in decision making in schools.

• Based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of

the Child (The United Nations, 1989), children have the
right to be involved in making decisions that impact them.

• Involving students in decision making can result in

improved academic performance and behaviour.

• The involvement of students in decision making can

generate greater levels of “buy-in” and increase the
probability of successful implementation of decisions.
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 169

• Allowing children to participate

TEST in democratic processes
prepares them for life in the real world of citizenship.

• Encouraging students’ voice may also result in the

improvement of student behaviour.

There is also evidence which suggests other benefits derived

from the interaction between students and school administrators.
These include: improvement in peer relations, better communication
with students of different ages and better communication flow
between administration and students (Keogh & Whyte, 2005;
Rowe, 2003). With reference to whole-school effects, benefits
were also seen in the areas of greater school ownership, improved
school ethos and atmosphere, a more democratic school culture,
a more relevant curriculum, and improvements in facilities,
equipment, and the physical environment (Taylor & Johnson,
2002; Tisdall, 2007).
Research by Mager and Nowak (2011) pointed to specific
benefits associated with student involvement through councils:
namely, personal effects on students, effects on school-wide
interactions, and effects on the school as an organization. With
reference to personal effects on students, student representatives
improved their communication skills, organizational skills and
social skills, developed responsibility, and gained an increased
understanding of the school as a system. In addition, students
developed and practiced democratic knowledge and skills, engaged
in critical thinking, learned how to accept responsibilities and how
to work effectively in teams (Mager & Nowak, 2011).

The Present Study

In 2014, UNICEF and UWI (Cave Hill Campus) signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to undertake a series of projects
that focused on capacity building in education in Barbados and
the Eastern Caribbean. UNICEF engaged the services of a team
of researchers from the School of Education, Cave Hill Campus
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Child-Friendly initiative
in primary and secondary schools in Barbados and the Eastern
170 MARSHALL ET AL.

Caribbean. This paper focusesTEST on the implementation of the CFS

initiative (also referred to as SPBMP) in Barbados and reports on
one aspect of the project — stakeholders’ perceptions of the four
key features of SPBMP in their schools. The research presented in
this paper was made possible through funding by UNICEF.

Method

Research Design

The study used a mixed method design that capitalized on

the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods. By
combining these methods concurrently, the weaknesses of one data
collection method are complemented by the strengths of the other.
In addition, this research design allows for data triangulation,
which increases the convergence validity and provides a more
holistic, comprehensive view of the data. The data collection
methods used included: (i) quantitative surveys with both closed
and open-ended questions, (ii) one-on-one interviews, and (iii)
non-participant observations. All participants were assured that
their responses would be treated with the utmost confidentiality
and that the data would be aggregated so that school and individual
identities would be protected.

Data Collection

There are 79 primary and 23 secondary schools in Barbados.

After discussions with the client, UNICEF, it was agreed, based
on the resources and allotted time for the project, that a random
sample of 16 schools (10 primary and 6 secondary) from both
rural and urban parishes would be selected. At each school, data
were collected from five sources as follows: (1) surveys with a
self-selected sample of teachers, (2) one-on-one interviews with
principals, (3) one-on-one interviews with School Focal Points
(SFPs), (4) a school audit, and (5) classroom observations with a
stratified sample of classes/forms. The data collected within the
16 schools are summarized in Table 1.
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 171

Table 1 TEST
Data Collected Within the Sixteen Schools and Across the Five Data Sources

Data Sources Primary Secondary Total

n=10 n=6 n=16
Teachers 62 75 137
Principals 8 6 13
SFPs 7 6 12
Classroom
54 58 112
Observations
School Audits 9 6 15

Instruments

The following five research instruments, one for each data

source, were used in the study.
Teacher surveys. These consisted primarily of closed-ended
items. Two quantitative scales were used in this questionnaire.
One of these measured teachers’ perceptions of the extent to
which their institutions were engaged in effective school practices.
This scale consisted of 52 items across eight key dimensions
designed using statements drawn from the School Psycho-social
Environment (PSE) profile questionnaire and the American
Institute for Research (AIR) School Climate and Connectedness
survey. Where necessary, changes were made to these statements
to ensure that the phrasing and concepts were consistent with
the Caribbean school experience. Respondents rated statements
such as “Students’ ideas about school improvement are actively
solicited by members of staff” using a 4-point Likert scale where
(1) represented “Not at all like my school”, (2) “A little like my
school”, (3) “Quite a lot like my school”, and (4) “Very much like
my school.” This scale was also included in the principals’ and the
SFPs interviews.
At each school, a number of questionnaires were delivered
to the principal or the SFP for distribution to and completion by
a sample of teachers. Across the sixteen schools, a total of 137
surveys were collected (see Table 1).
172 MARSHALL ET AL.

Cronbach’s coefficient, a measure

TEST of internal consistency, was
used to test the reliability of each of the eight subscales measuring
the key CFC features. The number of statements and the reliability
index calculated from the 137 teachers’ surveys for each subscale
are shown in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.67
to 0.92 indicating moderate to high internal consistency in the
responses to the subscales used (Field, 2005; Pallant, 2010). As
was noted earlier, this paper reports on four of the eight subscales
as indicated below.

Table 2
Number of Statements and Cronbach’s Alpha for Each of the Four Subscales

# of α
statements
1. Welcoming & supportive school environment 7 0.67
2. Positive behaviour management/discipline 8 0.81
3. Inclusive practices 8 0.77
4. Student participation 5 0.92

Principal and School Focal Point Interview Protocols.

One-on-one interviews were conducted with the principals and
the SFPs. Given their integral role in the programme, it was
critical that more in-depth information regarding the roll out,
implementation and sustainability of the programme be collected
from these stakeholders. The questionnaires used with these two
groups consisted primarily of open-ended questions. This provided
the opportunity for deeper probing to increase the richness of the
obtained data — particularly in areas related to the adoption and
launch, diffusion and dissemination of information, effectiveness
of the SPBMP teams in managing the implementation, and the
monitoring of SPBMP in their schools.
Classroom Observation Instrument. While it was important to
obtain the perspectives of the teachers, principals and SFPs on
how the programme has been implemented in the school, it was
equally critical that actual classroom observations be conducted
so that the researchers could gain first-hand insight into teachers’
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 173

use of child-friendly practicesTEST

in the classroom. At each school,
observations were conducted, where possible, at every class or form
level to ensure that an adequate cross-section of classes/forms was
represented in the study. These non-participant observations were
conducted for the entire class/form period of at least 30 minutes.
The instrument used consisted of 37 indicators of effective
child-friendly schools drawn from the School Psycho-social
Environment (PSE), profile questionnaire, and the American
Institute for Research (AIR) School Climate and Connectedness
survey. Observers used a three-point scale: (1) “Not at all True”,
(2) “Somewhat True”, (3) “Very True” to rate the extent to which
indicators such as “The teacher presents lessons in a well-prepared
and organized manner” and “The teacher uses positive methods
to manage student behaviour” were practiced in the classroom.
In addition to the ratings, examples were recorded during the
observations as supporting evidence and further explanation for
ratings assigned.
During the first day of observations, two pairs of researchers
were assigned to observe the same classrooms simultaneously
and to rate the behaviours they observed independently. After
this first session, discussions were convened to compare the
given ratings and accompanying evidence to ensure a high degree
of inter-observer agreement. Only after this had been achieved
were individual researchers assigned to observe classrooms on
their own. Across the sixteen schools, a total of 112 classroom
observations were made.
School Observation Audit. The fifth instrument, a school audit
list consisting of 37 statements, was used to rate the physical
conditions, security measures and inclusive features of the school.
Statements such as: School buildings are in good physical condition
(e.g., no peeling paint, broken windows, etc.) were rated using a
3-point scale ranging from (1) “Not at all True”, (2) “Somewhat
True”, to (3) “Very True of this school”. For each statement,
observers could include supporting examples of evidence for the
given ratings.
174 MARSHALL ET AL.

DataTEST
Analysis
The quantitative data collected were coded and electronically
entered for analysis using Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software. Descriptive statistics, including
frequencies, means and standard deviations, were run on the
quantitative variables. Qualitative data collected from the
open-ended questions on the surveys — during the one-on-one
interviews and from the observation field notes — were analyzed
as follows: codes were assigned to participants’ responses; each
code was checked for consistency; similar codes were grouped
into categories (themes); each category was re-examined and
further refined to achieve category consistency and to identify
sub-categories. Direct quotations were also used to supplement
findings by providing additional understanding and insight.

Results
In evaluating the extent to which SPBMP has been implemented
in Barbadian schools, the perceptions of teachers, principals
and SFPs were gathered regarding these four key areas. These
perceptions are reported below.
Welcoming and Supportive School Environment. In examining
this aspect of SPBMP in schools, data were collated from the
teachers’ surveys, classroom observations and the school audits.
Overall, the findings indicated that all of the Barbadian classrooms
observed: were physically secure and protected from the
elements (100%), had adequate lighting (99%), had a blackboard/
whiteboard in the classroom that all students could see clearly
from their seats (98%), were well ventilated (90%), had space for
students to work comfortably (88%), and were not overly affected
by excessive external noise (95%). Data from the school audit
highlighted the measures taken by schools to ensure students’
safety and security when on school premises. More specifically,
in all sixteen schools, a fence or other physical structure had been
erected to provide a barrier between traffic and school grounds,
and protocols had been established for visitor access (n=12) and
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 175

for students leaving the schools’

TESTpremises (n=14). The observers
noted that school buildings were generally in good physical
condition; notwithstanding the expected signs of wear and tear
such as peeling paint and broken tiles. However, in approximately
one-third of the classrooms, observers recorded instances of litter
on the floor or damaged furniture; with the occurrence being
noted more frequently in secondary (45%) than primary (19%)
classrooms (Table A1).
Two major areas of concern were the lack of commercially-
produced or hand-made visuals on classroom walls and a lack
of student work visible in classrooms. In 30% of classrooms,
observers noted that posters, artwork or maps were displayed;
whereas in the case of students’ work or projects, these were seen
in only 13% of the classrooms. Although the incidence was low
across the board, primary schools were more likely than secondary
schools to display classroom management/expectations or subject-
related educational posters (48% vs 14%) or to have examples of
students’ work visible in the classroom (15% vs 10%) (Table A1).
In summary, participants generally rated their schools as
having a “welcoming and supportive school environment”;
this was corroborated by researchers’ positive ratings of the
physical environment of the school and of the physical classroom
environment, except for the lack of classroom visuals and visible
evidence of student work. In addition, while the three groups of
participants reported that students’ achievements were regularly
and publicly recognized, they also acknowledged that a similar
level of public appreciation was not bestowed on teachers. The
survey results also revealed that more school-wide procedures
must be implemented to ensure that students who are absent
from school are kept abreast of activities they may have missed
(Table A2).
Positive Behaviour Management/Discipline. Data collected
from teachers, principals, SFPs and during the conduct of the
classroom observations were used in evaluating the Positive
Behaviour Management component in the schools. The questions
in this section focused on the implementation of a school-wide
system for establishing a code of conduct dealing with all levels
176 MARSHALL ET AL.

of behavioural infractions, and promoting the use of alternative

TEST
non-physical punishment.
There was widespread agreement across the three groups
of participants that most schools have developed a written code
of conduct and a behavioural plan specifying the standards of
behaviour expected in schools, and a defined system for referrals
for inappropriate behaviours: primary and secondary teachers
– 90% (n=123) vs principals – 100% (n=13) vs SFPs – 100%
(n=12). However, when asked about the existence of a written and
publicized code of conduct about acceptable behaviour between
staff and students, the positive perception levels decreased as
only 50% of both primary and secondary teachers (n=69), 69%
of principals (n=9), and 67% of SFPs (n=8) reported knowledge
of this type of document. With regard to the issue of alternative
disciplinary procedures, the overall ratings were positive, with 85%
of principals (n=11), 67% of SFPs (n=8), and 79% of primary and
secondary teachers (n=108) strongly agreeing that non-physical
styles of discipline were employed as the method of first choice.
Further, when asked whether their schools were supportive of the
use of non-physical styles, smaller percentages agreed that this
was generally reflective of their school’s culture (75% of SFPs
vs 62% of principals vs 53% of primary and secondary teachers).
When asked about the use of trained student advisors to mediate
student conflicts, all three participant groups indicated that this
was not a common practice in their schools, with only 19% of
primary and secondary teachers (n=26), 31% of principals (n=4),
and 33% of SFPs (n=4) reporting its occurrence (Table A3).
It was encouraging to note that across the classrooms observed,
the majority of teachers did not use “fear, threats, humiliation or
violence” to discipline students (Table A4). Instead, the most
frequently-used techniques were verbal reminders of appropriate
behaviour “What are you supposed to do when you want to answer
a question?” and physically moving the student, for example, to
stand by the classroom door or to work alone. In a few primary
classrooms, teachers were observed using alternative behavioural
modification strategies. For example, one teacher directed a
student to “peg yourself down” after a “wild” chase around the
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 177

classroom at the end of an activity;

TEST another encouraged a student
to move the clothespin with her name on it into the next category
of better behavior, while one primary teacher used signs marked
with instructions such as “Quiet”, “Raise Hand” to maintain order
in the classroom. However, while most teachers “are supportive
of non-physical forms of discipline”, others still use corporal
punishment. In one class, the teacher was observed using a strap
to discipline students and in another school a teacher was heard
chastising a student for an incorrect answer with smacks from
a ruler.
While observations indicated that student behavioural
expectations were only displayed in just over half of the primary
classrooms (53%) and just over a quarter of the secondary
classrooms (27%), it should be noted that students would be aware
of these expectations as most schools had a Student Handbook.
This is substantiated by Table A3 where, on average, participants
agreed that “There is a written and publicized code of conduct
about how the school expects students to behave.” That being said,
there was an observed difference between primary and secondary
classrooms in teacher and student response to student expectations.
While the behaviours of 79% of primary school students were in
keeping with the classroom expectations, this was “very true”
for less than 50% of the secondary students. And, while primary
teachers enforced expected behaviours in 85% of classrooms
and handled inappropriate behaviours effectively in about three-
quarters of the classrooms, the same could not be said for secondary
teachers. Only about half of the secondary teachers enforced
expected classroom behaviours (47%) and handled inappropriate
behaviours effectively (52%). For example, in a few secondary
classrooms students who fell asleep were left undisturbed by the
teacher while in many classrooms teachers raised their voices to be
heard above the din of off-task student conversations, and carried
on with the class despite student inattention and non-participation.
Inclusive Practices. Data from teachers, principals and SFPs
were combined with the classroom observations in assessing the
extent to which inclusive practices were implemented in Barbadian
classrooms. Table A5 lists each of the statements measured.
178 MARSHALL ET AL.

Overall, across the three groupsTESTthere was strong agreement that

girls and boys had the same opportunities to reach their academic
and athletic potential. Agreement was also high for the statement
“All students are provided with opportunities to engage in physical
activity as a recreational choice”. Primary teachers were more
likely to rate these statements as being characteristic of their
school experience than the secondary teachers in the sample.
On the other hand, low levels of agreement highlighted several
critical aspects that need to be improved. More specifically,
attention needs to be paid to adopting policy which focuses on how
to include students recognized as “different” in school activities
and how to integrate new students into the school (Table A5).
Classroom observation data support teachers’ reports of non-
discrimination between boys and girls. Two statements affirming
this were both rated as “Very True” in over 90% of classrooms,
namely: “In general, boys and girls receive equal time and
attention by the teacher” (94%); and “In general, students receive
equal time and attention regardless of their background (e.g.
ethnicity, religion, language, etc.)” (91%). However, school audits
generally noted lack of access to physical facilities (classrooms
and bathrooms) by physically-challenged students.
Student participation in school-wide decision-making. Five
statements were used to assess participants’ perceptions of the
efforts made to involve students in decision-making through
activities such as students’ councils. Results indicate that this is not
generally the case in the Barbadian schools surveyed. For example,
on each of the five statements, fewer than 20% of teachers agreed
that the propositions were “Very Much” reflective of their current
school environments. For example, only 28% of both primary
and secondary teachers (n=38), 33% of SFPs (n=4) and 46% of
principals (n=6) believed that at their respective schools “students
are involved in helping to solve school problems”. Similarly,
only 28% of both primary and secondary teachers (n=39), 42%
of SFPs (n=5) and 46% of principals (n=6) strongly agreed that
“students’ ideas about school improvement are actively solicited
by members of staff”. Also, of note, is the fact that even with
the low incidence of student input, on average, secondary school
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 179

teachers consistently rated their

TESTlevels of student participation
higher than their primary school counterparts (Table A6).

Discussion
The overall discussion and its implications are framed with
respect to the key areas used to measure the extent to which child-
friendly practices are being implemented in the schools.
Overall, the general picture reported by stakeholders and
corroborated by observations was that schools had welcoming and
supportive environments. One of the probable reasons for this is
that in the last ten years Barbadian public primary and secondary
schools were the beneficiaries of an Education Sector Enhancement
Project (ESEP) which focused specifically on improving the
infrastructural and learning environments of the primary and
secondary public schools. As a result, by the end of 2012, many of
the school plants had been refurbished and technological upgrades
had been made (Obidah, Aubourg-Rieble, & Vera, 2012).
The finding that there was widespread agreement among
all stakeholders as to the existence of written codes of conduct,
behavioural plans, and a system for referrals for inappropriate
behaviours is to be expected in the Barbadian school context. In
2004, the then Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Sports
designed a code of discipline which was distributed throughout
the school system and all teachers were expected to adhere to
this code. In addition, there are also clearly-established steps
and procedures for dealing with student referrals (Ministry of
Education, Youth Affairs & Sports, 2004). Further, during the
school term, MESTI holds schools accountable for following and
enforcing the agreed-to codes. Principals are therefore mandated
to, among other things; establish school expectations, guidelines,
rules and regulations that reflect the spirit and letter of the code
(Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs & Sports, 2004).
The findings indicate an overall lack of awareness on the part of
the stakeholders as to the existence of a published code of conduct
that governs acceptable behaviour between staff and students.
This may be due to the fact that these codes are not explicitly
180 MARSHALL ET AL.

outlined in one document butTEST are alluded to in components of

other pieces of legislation such as the Public Service Act, 2007–41
and the Public Service Amendment Act, 2010–1. For example, in
the Public Service Act (2007), it is stated, inter alia, that teachers’
conduct should not bring the service into disrepute — a phrase
that is open to subjective interpretation.
The widespread use of non-physical and alternative forms of
punishment reported by the stakeholders is noteworthy for two
reasons. Firstly, the MESTI has made it clear through directives
and circulars that only principals, deputy principals, and senior
teachers as defined by the Education Act have the authority to use
corporal punishment (Education Act and Regulations, 1982, Cap.
41). Teaching staff who fail to observe the law will not receive
the support of the Ministry in the event that legal action is taken
(MESTI, 2013). As a consequence, many administrators have
adopted the position that they would use alternative methods of
punishment as a first rather than last resort and have encouraged
their teaching staff to follow suit. In addition, the MESTI has
partnered with civil organizations such as the Free Mind Institute
and Impact Justice to promote behaviour modification and
alternative positive approaches to student discipline within the
schools. The Government of Barbados has become a signatory to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (The United Nations,
1989), and therefore it is obligated to reflect this by promoting
policies that are consistent with the protection of child rights.
Significantly, however, the literature on the use of corporal
punishment and alternative forms of discipline is still divided as to
which one, if any, is more efficacious (Busienei, 2012; Maldonado,
2012; Melton, 2011, & Vockell, 2011).
The finding that Barbadian children are treated equally and
provided with equal opportunities to participate in school activities
was consistent with expectations. The Education Regulations
which provide for the compulsory attendance of children from
5-16 years of age irrespective of sex, religion or any other defining
characteristic (Education Act and Regulations, 1982, Cap. 41)
and the fact that Barbados is a signatory to the United Nations
Convention of Rights of the Child afford children the opportunity
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 181

to be treated equally. However,TESTas it relates to the provision for

the needs of the physically challenged, there has been a degree of
inertia. One reason for this is that the concept of inclusion is still
nascent and has not been widely adopted throughout the educational
system. Traditionally, students with physical challenges were not
included in mainstream education; therefore, authorities are now
in the process of equipping schools to reflect the inclusive-schools
paradigm. Retrofitting of schools to facilitate the physically
challenged is therefore a work in progress.
The Barbadian educational system does not have a culture
of shared decision making in schools. Students and parents are
usually excluded from having a voice, particularly on issues
related to curriculum and administrative matters, a finding which
resonates with this study. For the most part, there were either
no student advisors or where they existed, they were not trained
to mediate student conflict or were not involved in school-wide
decision making. Further, many of the schools that reported the
presence of student councils indicated that those councils were
either dormant or not functioning at the expected level. This
finding was in sync with that of Bailey (2009) who examined
student participation in both primary and secondary schools
in Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, and St. Lucia and
reported a level of indifference on the part of students toward
student council activities. Additional research by Jerupto and
Kiprop (2011) reported that teachers and principals generally
viewed students as not mature enough to take part in decisions
related to administrative and curriculum matters and therefore
their input was not actively sought.

Conclusion and Recommendations

A number of recommendations have emerged based on the
findings discussed above. While the schools generally have
welcoming and supportive environments, there is a need for greater
emphasis on the creation of print-rich environments both at the
primary and secondary levels. It is understood that in secondary
schools, students do not remain in a single classroom for the entire
182 MARSHALL ET AL.

day but rather move from room to room as each subject dictates.
TEST
However, there are some specialists or subject-specific form
rooms (e.g. laboratories for Science and Food & Nutrition and
workshops for Technical and Vocational subjects) where teachers
still need to find creative ways to publicly show students that they
value their contributions and where they can provide opportunities
for students to learn from each other’s work. Additionally, with
respect to the issue of inclusion, aside from the physical changes,
there also needs to be a shift in the policy and school culture as
it relates to the practice of inclusion and the provision of quality
education for all students.
Finally, there is a need to encourage greater levels of student
democratic participation in Barbadian schools. While we are aware
that addressing the amplification of student voices in school-wide
decision making is challenging, principals and teachers need to
commit to the renegotiation of existing power relationships with all
students. The results indicate that student participation, whether in
school-wide decision-making or in their own learning, is limited.
The majority of classrooms reflected the traditional teacher-led,
didactic pedagogy. This was equally true of primary and secondary
classrooms but especially so in the latter. In addition, teachers
reported limited student participation in school-wide decisions.
Student-centered pedagogy and student leadership in the life
of the school are key features of child-friendly schools; limited
attention to these areas in many Barbadian schools does not augur
well for sustaining the programme in the schools. While some
secondary schools have taken the first step of forming student
councils, much more needs to be done to ensure their effective
functioning and sustainability. If a true democratic culture is to
prevail in Barbadian schools, then it is important that students’
input is solicited in all aspects of school life.

References
Bailey, C. (2009). Participation by teens in school based clubs. What
teens want us to know. Unicef Office for Barbados and the
Eastern Caribbean. UN House, Marine Gardens.
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 183

Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990).TEST

Are regular education classes
equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?
Exceptional Children, 56(6), 515–526.
Bernard, A. K. (1999). The child-friendly school: Concept and
practice. Draft prepared for the Education Section, New York:
United Nations Children’s Fund.
Bhutto, S., & Chapra, I. (2013). Educational research on
“Constructivism” – an exploratory view. International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications, 3(12) 1–7.
Bosworth, K., & Judkins, M. (2014). Tapping into the power
of school climate to prevent bullying: One application of
schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports.
Theory into Practice, 53(4), 300–307. doi:10.1080/00405841.20
14.947224
Busienei, A. (2012). Alternative methods and their efficacy.
Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 3(2), 155–164.
Chabbott, C. (2004). UNICEF’s child-friendly schools
framework: A desk review. New York: United Nations Children’s
Fund.
Christensen, J., Siegel-Robertson, J., Williamson, R.., &
Hunter, W. (2013). Preparing educational leaders for special
education success: Principals’ perspectives. The Researcher,
25(1), 94–107.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York:
The MacMillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York: Prometheus Books.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor.
Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
Education Act and Regulations (1982, CAP. 41). Barbados:
Government Printery.
Fallon, L., & McCarthy, S. (2014). School wide positive
behavior support (SWPBS) in the classroom: Assessing perceived
challenges to consistent implementation in Connecticut schools.
Education and treatment of children, 37(1), 1–24.
184 MARSHALL ET AL.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics

TEST using SPSS (and sex,
drug, and rock ‘n’ roll). London: Sage Publications.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1998). Competing visions for
educating students with disabilities: Inclusion versus full
inclusion. Childhood Education, 74(5), 309–316.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional
adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research,
86(21), 70–84.
Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. (Eds.) (2004).
Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading
instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Irvin, L., Horner, R., Ingram, K., Todd, A., Sugai, G., Sampson, N.,
& Boland, J. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for
decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle
schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 10–23.
Jerupto, T., & Kiprop, C. (2011). Extent of student
participation in decision making in secondary schools in Kenya.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(21),
92–99.
Keogh, A., & Whyte, J. (2005). Second level student councils
in Ireland: A study of enablers, barriers and supports. Dublin:
The Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin.
Kim, Y. (2013). Inclusive education in Korea: Policy, practice
and challenges. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual
Disabilities, 10(2), 79–81. doi: 10.1111/jppi.12034
Lester, N. B., & Onore, C. S. (1990). Learning change: One
school district meets language across the curriculum. Portsmith,
NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first
and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products,
Ltd.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1991). Restructuring for quality.
In Lloyd J.W., Repp A.C., Singh N.N. (Eds.), The regular
education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues,
and models (pp. 43–56). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
Mager, U. & Nowak, P. (2011). Effects of student participation in
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 185

decision making at school.TEST

A systematic review and synthesis of
empirical research. Educational Research Review, 7, 38-61.
Maldonado, M. (2012). Cultural issues in the corporal
punishment of children. Kansas Association for Infant and early
Childhood mental health. Retrieved 2/5/17 from
www.kaimh.org/index.php
McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure
and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Meijer, C., Soriano, V., & Watkins, A. (2003). Special needs
education in Europe: Inclusive policies and practices. In Special
needs education in Europe, Thematic publication. Middelfart,
Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education.
Melton, R. (2011). An overview of research on corporal
punishment. The league of women voters of South Carolina.
Retrieved 02/05/2017 from
www.lwvsc.org/files/corporalpunishment
The Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and
Innovation. (2013). Issues and concerns in the public school
system. Circular No., PS19/2013.
The Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture. (2004).
The National School Code of Discipline.
Obidah, J., Aubourg-Rieble, S., & Vera, J. (2012). Project
Completion Report: Education Sector Enhancement Project
(ESEP).
Osher, D., Bear, G., Sprague, J., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can
we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1),
48–58.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide
to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration
of Cognitive Structures. New York: Viking Press.
Public Service Act (2007). Barbados: Government Printery.
Public Service Amendment Act (2010). Barbados: Government
Printery.
Rowe, D. (2003). The business of school councils:
Aninvestigation of democracy in schools, citizenship. London:
Citizenship Foundation.
186 MARSHALL ET AL.

Shannon, G. & Bylsma, P. (2007).TEST The Nine Characteristics of High-

Performing Schools: A research-based resource for schools and
districts to assist with improving student learning. (2nd Ed.).
Olympia, WA: OSPI.
Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: Making it
meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children & Society, 18(2),
106–118.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum
considerations for inclusive classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Sugai, G. (2003). Commentary: establishing efficient and
durable systems of school based support. School Psychology
Review, 32(4), 530–535.
Taylor, M., & Johnson, R. (2002). School councils: Their
role in citizenship and personal and social education. Slough:
National Foundation for Educational Research.
Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (2000). Collaborative learning:
A powerful tool in school restructuring. In R. A. Villa & J.
S. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective
education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed., pp. 254–291).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Tisdall, K. (2007). School councils and pupil participation
in Scottish secondary schools. Glasgow: Scottish Consumer
Council. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20090724135150/http:/scotcons.demonweb.co.uk/education/
SCCFinalPupilCouncilsReport.pdf.pdf
The United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2009). Child Friendly
Schools Manual. New York: UNICEF Division of
Communication.
Vockell, E. (2011). Social Aspects of Motivation: Classroom Goal
structure. Educational
Psychology: A Practical Approach. Retrieved from
http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy5/
edpsy5_social.htm
Whitty, G. & Wisby, E. (2007). Real decision making?
School councils in action. Research Report. London: Institute of
Education. 
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 187

Appendix
TEST
Table A1
Percentages of Classroom Observations Where Indicators of Safe and
Welcoming Classroom Environment Were Rated as “Very True”

Overall Primary Secondary

Safe and Welcoming
n=112 n=54 n=58
Classroom Environment
classrooms classrooms classrooms
B.I.a The classroom is protected
from the elements (solid roof, 112 (100%) 54 (100%) 58 (100%)
walls, and floor).
B.I.c The classroom lighting is
111 (99.1%) 54 (100%) 57 (98.3%)
adequate for students to work.
B.I.i There is a blackboard/
whiteboard in the classroom
110 (98.2%) 53 (98.1%) 57 (98.3%)
that all students can see clearly
from their seats.
B.I.e Noise outside the school does
not affect communication 106 (94.6%) 52 (96.3%) 54 (93.1%)
within the classroom.
B.I.h Furniture is of the right
size for students to work 105 (93.8%) 49 (90.7%) 56 (96.6%)
comfortably.
B.I.b The classroom has adequate
101 (90.2%) 51 (94.4%) 50 (86.2%)
ventilation.
B.I.g Students each have sufficient
99 (88.4%) 44 (81.5%) 55 (94.8%)
space to work.
B.I.e Noise within the school does 86 (76.8%) 45 (83.3%) 41 (70.7%)
not affect communication
within the classroom.
B.I.d The classroom is clean and 76 (67.9%) 44 (81.5%) 32 (55.2%)
orderly (the floor is clean, the
tables are orderly, no garbage
on the floor).
B.I.j Posters, artwork, or maps 34 (30.4%) 26 (48.1%) 8 (13.8%)
(commercially produced or
handmade) appear on the
walls of the classroom.
B.I.k There are examples of student 14 (12.5%) 8 (14.8%) 6 (10.3%)
work or projects visible in the
classroom.

 
188 MARSHALL ET AL.

Table A2 TEST
Frequencies/Percentages of Participants Rating Welcoming & Supportive
Environment Indicators as “Very much like my school” or “A lot like my school”

Welcoming & Supportive Teachers (n=137) Principals SFPs

School Environment
Prim. Sec.
(N=62) (n=75) (n=13) (n=12)
1. School personnel
(admin staff, teachers,
students, ancillary
52 (83.9%) 61 (81.3%) 11 (84.6%) 12 (100.0%)
staff) are friendly
and welcoming to
newcomers, visitors.
2. The school plant
(building & environs) 47 (75.8%) 43 (57.3%) 13 (100.0%) 9 (75.0%)
is well-maintained.
3. The school is badly
affected by crime
5 (8.1%) 4 (5.3%) 2 (15.4%) 1 (8.3%)
and violence in the
community.
4. The school is seen as
an appealing place to
44 (71.0%) 41 (54.7%) 10 (76.9%) 10 (83.3%)
work by those who
work there
5. The school holds
regular events where
the achievements of
47 (75.8%) 56 (74.7%) 12 (92.3%) 8 (66.7%)
students are publicly
recognised and
applauded.
6. The school holds
regular events where
the achievements of
17 (27.4%) 17 (22.7%) 9 (69.2%) 4 (33.3%)
teachers are publicly
recognised and
applauded.
7. Systems are in place
to ensure that students
who are absent from
32 (51.6%) 25 (33.3%) 10 (76.9%) 3 (25.0%)
school are aware of
the activities taking
place in class.
 
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 189

Table A3 TEST
Frequencies/Percentages of Participants Rating Positive Behaviour Management/
Discipline Indicators as “Very much like my school” or “A lot like my school”

Positive Behaviour Teachers (n=137) Principals SFPs

Management/Discipline
Prim Sec.
(n=62) (n=75) (n=13) (n=12)
1. There is a written and
publicised code of
conduct about how the 57 (91.9%) 66 (88.0%) 13 (100.0%) 12 (100.0%)
school expects students
to behave.
2. School has a written
behaviour plan with
50 (80.6%) 51 (68.0%) 12 (92.3%) 10 (83.3%)
agreed expectations for
student behaviour.
3. There is a written
and publicised code
of conduct about
32 (51.6%) 37 (49.3%) 9 (69.2%) 8 (66.7%)
acceptable behaviour
between staff and
students.
4. The school has
a defined system
for referrals for 41 (66.1%) 55 (73.3%) 11 (84.6%) 10 (83.3%)
inappropriate
behaviours.
5. The school has
a written policy
promoting non-physical
34 (54.8%) 29 (38.7%) 10 (76.9%) 7 (58.3%)
punishment as an
acceptable disciplinary
procedure.
6. Teachers are supportive
in the use of non-
31 (50.0%) 42 (56.0%) 8 (61.5%) 9 (75.0%)
physical styles of
discipline.
7. Non-physical styles of
discipline are employed
50 (80.6%) 58 (77.3%) 11 (84.6%) 8 (66.7%)
as the method of first
choice.
8. The school has student
advisors who have been
8 (12.9%) 18 (24.0%) 4 (30.8%) 4 (33.3%)
trained to mediate when
conflict occurs.

 
190 MARSHALL ET AL.

Table A4 TEST
Percentages of Classroom Observations Where Indicators of Positive /
Behaviour Management/Discipline Were Rated as “Very True”

Overall Primary Secondary

n=112 n=54 n=58
classrooms classrooms classrooms

Positive Behaviour
Management/Disciplinary % % %
Observations
B.III.e Teachers do not discipline 93.4 92.4 94.3
students using fear,
threats, humiliation or
violence.
B.III.c Expected student 66.3 84.9 47.1
behaviours are enforced
in the classroom
B.III.d Disruptive and 64.0 74.2 51.8
inappropriate behaviours
are effectively handled.
B.III.b Student behaviours 63.1 79.2 48.3
demonstrated that
guidelines for routines,
procedures and norms are
well established.
B.III.a Student expectations 39.4 52.8 26.8
are displayed in the
classroom.

 
 MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ... IN BARBADOS 191

Table A5 TEST
Frequencies/Percentages of Participants Rating Inclusive Practices
Indicators as “Very Much Like My School” or “A lot like my school”

Inclusive Practices Teachers (n=137) Principals SFPs

Prim. Sec.
(n=62) (n=75) (n=13) (n=12)
1. The school has a policy
on how to integrate new 17 (27.4%) 29 (38.7%) 10 (76.9%) 7 (58.3%)
students into the school.
2. Staff have a policy
about the best way
to include those who
10 (16.1%) 22 (29.3%) 8 (61.5%) 6 (50.0%)
are recognised as
“different” in school
activities.
3. All students have
opportunities to
experience creative 51 (82.3%) 65 (86.7%) 10 (76.9%) 10 (83.3%)
learning e.g. art, music,
dance, drama.
4. The staff takes active
steps to prevent the
46 (74.2%) 51 (68.0%) 13 (100.0%) 11 (91.7%)
exclusion of students by
their peers.
5. Students take part in
activities that help
them value differences
between them (e.g. 50 (80.6%) 46 (61.3%) 12 (92.3%) 10 (83.3%)
cultural, religious,
social, physical,
mental).
6. Girls and boys have the
same opportunities to
56 (90.3%) 53 (70.7%) 11 (100.0%) 8 (80.0%)
reach their academic
potential.*
7. Girls and boys have
the same opportunities
57 (91.9%) 51 (68.0%) 11 (100.0%) 8 (80.0%)
to reach their athletic
potential.*
8. All students are
provided with
opportunities to engage 58 (93.5%) 64 (85.3%) 11 (84.6%) 11 (91.7%)
in physical activity as a
recreational choice.
Note. *Two of the schools included in the sample were single-sex schools.
Hence for these two statements (i.e., Statement 6 and 7), the eligible numbers
of principals and SFPs were 11 and 8 respectively.
 192 MARSHALL ET AL.

Table A6 TEST
Frequencies/Percentages of Participants Rating Student Participation
Indicators as “Very Much Like My School” or “A lot like my school”

Student Participation Teachers (n=137) Principals SFPs

Prim. Sec.
(n=62) (n=75) (n=13) (n=12)
1. The school actively
involves students in
decision-making e.g. how 12 (19.4%) 30 (40.0%) 5 (38.5%) 5 (41.7%)
the school is organised, the
rules of the school, etc.
2. Students’ ideas about
school improvement
are actively solicited by 10 (16.1%) 29 (38.7%) 6 (46.2%) 5 (41.7%)
members of staff.

3. The students’ council

plays an active role in the
9 (14.5%) 34 (45.3%) 4 (30.8%) 4 (33.3%)
everyday functioning of
the school.
4. There is a procedure
that enables all students
to openly express their
feelings and thoughts 18 (29.0%) 27 (36.0%) 6 (46.2%) 5 (41.7%)
about school work and
school life.
5. Students are involved in
helping to solve school 14 (22.6%) 24 (32.0%) 6 (46.2%) 4 (33.3%)
problems.

Ian Marshall is a Lecturer in Educational Leadership at the School of

Education, Cave Hill Campus, UWI, Barbados. His research interests include,
but are not limited to, principal and teacher leadership, effective schools,
parental involvement and student academic achievement.
Email: ian.marshall@cavehill.uwi.edu

Grace-Anne Jackman is a Lecturer in Testing and Measurement in the

School of Education, Cave Hill Campus, UWI, Barbados. Her research
interests include large scale assessments, survey research methodology, test
construction, and Differential Item Functioning.

Claudette Fongkong-Mungal is a Senior Lecturer in Curriculum Studies in

the School of Education, Cave Hill Campus, UWI, Barbados. Her research
interests include curriculum innovation and differentiated instruction.

View publication stats