Background to the Research

• This research study is supplementary to the existing document 'A Review of the Schools Community Relations Programme 2002'. This phase of the study was undertaken in recognition that pupils can make a significant contribution to the information process.
• The research study was conducted within a context of emerging policy for community relations and within broader legislative, educational and political initiatives.
• The four key tasks were:
  • To clarify young peoples' understanding of SCRP practice;
  • To gain an insight into the experience of programmes from the perspective of young people;
  • To seek young peoples' opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of current programmes;
  • To consult young people on how the Programme might better address community relations issues.
    

Research Approach

• Qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection were developed to compile a representation of pupil perspectives - namely a questionnaire survey and focus group interviews.
• Pupils from 20 schools - comprising one primary and one post-primary link - were identified in each Education and Library Board. The schools were representative of the range of community relations programmes.
  

Main Findings

• The community relations focus of programmes remains vague and the language of community relations is not familiar to many of the children.
• Few of the programmes are issue-based and remain influenced by curricular objectives.
• Pupils perceived organised outings and trips as a central feature of the Programme.
• Pupils viewed positively the opportunity to visit partner schools.
• There was little evidence of pupil opportunity to mix.
• A local link can provide a productive and sustainable programme.
• There is a lack of consistency in the level of engagement with teachers from both schools.
• Post-primary schools continue to have a tendency to adopt selective criteria for pupil participants that does not reflect genuine community relations needs.
• Residentials are considered a valuable exercise for the nature of the contact they generate within the context of the Programme.
• There is no evidence of 'unpacking' or evaluating the Programme individually or in partnership with the link school.
  

Conclusions

• Recommendations on the structure of the Programme include:
  • A review of the current format of the SCRP within changing democratic, political and legislative structures;
  • A review of the fulfilment of community relations objectives within the remit of the SCRP;
  • A review of the balance between curricular and community relations objectives;
  • Consideration of strategies for the promotion of 'issue-based' programmes;
  • A consideration of strategies for the promotion of local links;
  • A review of current criteria relating to the selection of pupils for the Programme.
• Recommendations on the delivery of the Programme include:
  • A review of the relevance of identified projects to Programme objectives;
  • A review of the relevance and impact of ice-breaker sessions;
  • A review of the level and nature of pupil-pupil interaction;
  • A review of the level and nature of pupil-teacher interaction;
  • Consideration of strategies to improve discussion and debate;
  • Consideration of strategies to develop ongoing, progressive programmes;
  • A review of the value and purpose of residentials within the context of the Programme;
  • Consideration of the training implications for teachers.
• Recommendations for monitoring and evaluating the Programme include:
  • A review of evaluation arrangements to measure the impact of community relations for pupils at primary and post-primary levels;
  • Consideration of strategies to develop effective evaluation techniques;
  • A review of current arrangements to facilitate pupil discussion and reflection;
  • A review of monitoring arrangements to measure pupil/teacher interaction.