1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page 1
Taking Risks An evaluation of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme methodology and impact
Funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Imogen Slater, Chrissie Tiller and Alison Rooke Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths, University of London 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page 2
Imogen Slater, Chrissie Tiller and Alison Rooke are affiliated to
This report was funded by
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the generous support of the following Future Stages funders: Arts Council England Eleanor Rathbone Charitable Trust J. Paul Getty Charitable Trust KPMG Foundation London Borough of Lambeth Paul Hamlyn Foundation The Equitable Charitable Trust
We would also like to acknowledge the work of both Gerald Koessl and Aylwyn Walsh whose input and expertise was invaluable to the evaluation. We would also like to thank the Ovalhouse team, staff and pupils at Kennington Park Academy and Summerhouse PRU, and the children, parents and carers attending Pick&Mix for their input and support. Finally we would like to thank the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for funding this report. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page 3
Contents
Executive Summary (i) – (iii)
1 Introduction 1
2 Situating the Project in the Wider Context 3 2.1 The Creating Change Network 5
3 From Method to Methodology: The Ovalhouse Framework of Value 7 3.1 The Value of Values 8 3.2 Values and Evaluation 8
4 Delivering Future Stages 10 4.1 The Numbers: Achievement against targets 11 4.2 Training and Dissemination 13 4.3 Young People Reached 14
5 Evaluation Methodology and Approach 15 5.1 Developing the Future Stages Evaluation Framework 15
6 Findings: The difference the project has made 17 6.1 For Young People:‘Being taken on a journey’ 17 6.2 For Staff:‘Get into the circle’ 24 6.3 Partnerships and Organisational Learning:‘It’s such a beautiful fit’ 26 6.4 How Do You Teach These Skills? 29 6.5 Funders 31
7 Conclusions: Reflecting back and looking forward 32 7.1 Key Points 32 7.2 Evaluative Practice 35 7.3 Taking Practice Outwards: The future and the new Ovalhouse 35
8 Appendix 37 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page 4 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page i
Taking Risks: Executive Summary
Programme
Future Stages is an arts intervention programme developed and delivered by Ovalhouse, funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation (from 2012 – 2015), KPMG Foundation and the Equitable Charitable in order to support young people deemed‘at risk’.Drawing on arts participation practice, underpinned by the theory of leading practitioners such as Augusto Boal and Dorothy Heathcote, the programme offers young people opportunities to develop the resilience and skills needed to break the cycle of deprivation and exclusion many of them face in their lives. Future Stages consists of a number of interlinked strands: the delivery of sessions with children and young people; partnership working with agencies including local authorities, schools and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs – schools specifically for children who are unable to attend a mainstream school); In Service Training (INSET – training focused on developing professional practice); and the establishment of the national Creating Change Network.
Methodology
The Ovalhouse creative methodology, based on its principles of equality and social justice, combines techniques of role-play, forum theatre, storytelling and physical theatre to engage young people emotionally, intellectually and imaginatively. This value-led approach is at the heart of everything Ovalhouse does as an organisation.
For young people whose lives have often been subject to sanctions, exclusions and involuntary referrals, the opportunity to develop a sense of autonomy and freedom through participation in theatre-making proved pivotal. The drama workshops created a safe,‘parallel space’to the constraints often experienced in the institutions they have been placed in and, in doing so, allowed them to begin to exercise agency, explore their own values and discover possible solutions:
‘’A* had huge behavioural difficulties but found it very easy to take on roles. It was good for us [teaching staff] to see this particular strength and it offered him something to hang his self-esteem on”
As the programme developed, Ovalhouse practitioners recognised the importance of engaging the young people with the process through regular‘interviews’.Not only did this encourage further self- reflection and a sharing of aspirations but it constantly fed back into the creation and shaping of the programme. This was matched by a series of INSETs with the staff at partner institutions in order to ensure this way of working became embedded in the young people’s wider learning environment. These INSETs have been a major part of the relationship building and have contributed significantly to the wider impact of the programme.
Key Outcomes
Young people Over three years Future Stages worked with a total of 61 young people over 164 sessions, surpassing the programme’s original targets. This is indicative not only of the effectiveness of the delivery, but also the real demand for the work. Extra sessions were added to enable young people to take part in the national Arts Award scheme (14 completed this) and other extra-curricular activities including
i 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page ii
intergenerational events and theatre visits. These broadened the young people’s cultural experience.
Some of the most notable behavioural changes in the participating young people were increased focus, generosity, teamwork, resilience, emotional awareness and confidence. The evaluation designed an engagement matrix which charted individual progress from a baseline in key areas including self awareness, emotional literacy, social skills, and sense of responsibility. Staff, practitioners and the young people themselves were aware of changes and progress over time and the impact of this. As one teacher explained, “they became much better at vocalising, drama is such an important resource, of acting out and understanding how others might think”.Another reflected how the young people in her class had become “far more co-operative and communicative with each other and more able to support each other”as a result of the programme, remarking that it had not only helped prepare them for transition to mainstream secondary school but “for life more generally”. Culturally the programme had most noticeable effect on the school with which it worked for the duration of the programme, giving staff “the opportunity to behave differently with the young people”.This was the result of relationship building over time and predicated on trust and recognition of each other’s different areas of expertise.
Having worked in two primary age PRU units in Lambeth and Southwark in the first year, it became clear that shared values and a common approach to learning with partners was essential to achieve real impact, as was consistent presence and participation of staff and young people. While the sessions continued with one PRU, Ovalhouse took the strategic decision to design an open access project to reach a wider demographic of young people at risk. This aspect of the project had its own challenges, in terms of attendance and formal educational support, but it also enabled the team to explore ways in which the methodology can be delivered to a wider cohort.
Organisations and Partnerships The partnerships developed through Future Stages and the organisational interaction that this involved offered rich opportunities for learning, for school staff and practitioners as well as their organisations. Ovalhouse staff have undertaken Arts Award training as well as learning‘de-escalation’ techniques and the safe handling of children through the ‘Team Teach’ programme, which offers training in positive handling strategies for environments where challenging behaviours are present. INSETs were offered to Ovalhouse staff, HE students, arts and non-arts professionals as well as partner schools, in order to:
• Embed the learning to create legacy • Disseminate the learning to a wider range of practitioners working across sectors.
A total of 22 INSET sessions were run with staff from partner schools and other institutions, engaging 389 people over the three-year period. They have been extremely successful, well received and there is interest in extending this offer more widely.
Creating Change Network The Creating Change Network’s first meeting took place in June 2013. Since then it has a growing national membership (currently 210 associate members) and a wide range of regional and national activities including advocacy, sharing resources and developing practice through training. In December 2014 it hosted its first highly successful conference, Creating Links, which gathered many of those at the forefront of research and delivery in this field of work.
ii 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:51 Page iii
Looking Forward
As part of an on-going body of work at Ovalhouse, Future Stages has consolidated much of the thinking of both staff and practitioners; in particular the commitment to reflective practice. Work with one PRU is continuing beyond the funding peroid, with the school allocating budget for ongoing delivery from its Pupil Premium income. This is a real testament to the value and success of Future Stages, especially the role participatory theatre practice can play in not only releasing young people’s imaginations but giving them safe creative space in which to express themselves, develop life skills and experience achievement; this opportunity is critical given the economic, social and educational disadvantages faced by the young people the programme has engaged. The Creating Change Network will clearly play an important role in facilitating the sharing of this high quality practice that is underpinned by the ethics and values that are at the core of Ovalhouse’s work.
iii 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page iv 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 1
1 Introduction
The Future Stages Programme1 was developed and delivered by Ovalhouse from October 2012 to July 2015. It is an arts intervention programme designed to support young people who are considered ‘at risk’. It uses a specific methodology that draws on a body of participatory theatre-based practice exemplified by Augusto Boal2 and Dorothy Heathcote3 amongst others. The programme aims to give young people effective tools in order to better equip them to deal with the substantial challenges they face in their lives. The programme involves working in partnership with other agencies including local authorities, schools and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs).
Alongside the delivery of the Future Stages Programme, Ovalhouse initiated the Creating Change Network for organisations involved in ‘creative participatory group work for children and young people at risk’.4 The purpose of the network is to connect those working in the sector in order to share practice and collectively promote and advocate the value of their work.
The title of this report Taking Risks refers to the fine balance between safety, risk and trust which is central to the engagement with young people in the Future Stages Programme and the positive outcomes for young people. Discourses of safety and risk surround the children and young people who take part in Future Stages, whether being classified as being‘at risk’of offending, or having their exposure to risk assessed. Through Future Stages young people are encouraged to take some manageable positive risks. These include the risk of looking silly, the risk of being laughed at, and the risk of getting it wrong. In the process of taking risks with their bodies and imaginations they develop self-confidence and build trust with others, including other young people and adult professionals. This learning though risk-taking is not limited to the young participants. The professionals attending sessions are also encouraged to step out of their ‘comfort zone’ and preconceived appropriate responses to the seemingly troublesome young people they are working with. The theme of risk and safety also resonates with the ethical framework at the heart of Ovalhouse methodology when working with‘targeted’youth. While the stable co-ordinates of toolkits and guidelines offer a transferable method for working with this group, the work of Ovalhouse is underpinned by a set of ethical values which encourages emerging theatre practitioners to take risks themselves and, significantly, be honest about the failures, mistakes and challenges they are making sense of as they develop their professional practice. This culture of openness to risk-taking, learning and reflection stands in contrast to the culture of some of the institutions that Future Stages works in partnership with; professional cultures that can be characterised as risk-adverse, with understandable fears of accusation and individualised blame.
This report sets out the evaluation of Future Stages. The evaluation process ran alongside the Future Stages Programme between October 2012 and May 2015. The evaluation methodology has been formative and longitudinal, informing delivery over three years of the programme. During this significant period of time quantitative and qualitative data has been collected and analysed. The progressive nature of the project funding5 allowed for substantial learning and adaptation. This has been reflected in both the delivery and the evaluation itself. Consequently the objectives of the evaluation have been honed over the project’s lifetime. These were:
• To assess the Ovalhouse creative methodology for working with arts and social inclusion. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses with advice on areas of improvement. • To assess the impact of the programme’s advocacy and profile raising work on both a national, regional and local level. • To develop an evaluation framework that ensures that robust evidence is collected by Ovalhouse and Future Stages partners which will: i. Assess the level of the participation of participants as well as the views of those working on the project and other stakeholders. ii. Assess what difference the project has made to the lives of participants in relation to baseline data 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 2
and the original intended outcomes. iii. Investigate the partnerships established in the project. What has worked well and how they could be strengthened; identifying learning that can be applied to future models. iv. Assess how Ovalhouse has managed the project including how it has impacted on organisational capacity and how the work fits with other project work.
The Creating Change Network6 was established in conjunction with the Future Stages Programme at Ovalhouse. The Ovalhouse Team have provided a consistent connection between these two strands of work, leading the facilitation and management of both.
The evaluation has focused on the impact of Future Stages, as well as highlighting learning and good practice. Alongside this there has been an on-going interest in articulating this practice, situating it within the sector, and, crucially, disseminating it more widely.
The evaluation adopted a formative approach and in doing so developed a close working relationship with the Ovalhouse Future Stages team. The learning through this partnership has been dialogical or two way; the CUCR team has developed an understanding of the specificities of the Future Stages methodological approach and has sought to contextualise this within wider sectoral and policy debates. Simultaneously the Future Stages team have had an opportunity to reflect and articulate their practice.
As well as producing this final report the evaluation team has written and disseminated a number of texts:
• Creating Change, Imagining Futures: Participatory Arts and Young People ‘At Risk’, Future Stages Discussion Paper, Aylwyn Walsh, CUCR, 2013. • Participatory Performing Arts: Towards a Typology, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR 2014. • Future Stages Interim Evaluation Report, Imogen Slater, Chrissie Tiller, Alison Rooke, CUCR 2013. • Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 2014.7
Future Stages was successful in achieving its original aims and surpassing many of its targets. However the motivation to explore and develop the practice and the intrinsic learning was arguably more valuable. Understanding what works, why and how this can or should be valued offers fertile ground when thinking how this work can be taken forward. Ovalhouse have now consciously connected the work of Future Stages within the body of their wider practice and situated it as part of a broader sphere of practice nationally through the Creating Change Network.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 3
2 Situating the project in the wider context
The successes and practices at the heart of Future Stages should be understood within wider arts and education policy context. Children and young people whose behaviour is seen to be disruptive, challenging and troublesome within UK schools are frequently excluded and subject to programmes which seek to manage their behaviour such as PRUs and Learning Support Centres (LSCs).This educational and disciplinary work intersects with an arts education paradigm informed by values of social justice and equality in interesting ways as this report sets out.The focus on individual behaviour, psychological problems and familial challenges found in the work of PRUs and LSCs can obscure wider sociological patterns of inequality and discrimination. As Gillies argues:
“Institutional policy and practice frameworks for enforcing good behaviour and demonstrating academic attainment sit uneasily alongside broader commitments to promoting social justice and equality of opportunity. Extensive research conducted over many years demonstrates the extent to which the social structural categories of class, gender, race and ethnicity are implicated in educational trajectories. Children from poorer families are less likely to achieve academically than their better off counterparts and are more likely to be perceived as disruptive in the classroom. Official statistics detailing school exclusion rates in England and Wales are a particularly stark reminder of the significance of gender and race, with black boys disproportionately far more likely to face this sanction.” 8, 9
Future Stages, and the work of the Creating Change Network, also takes place within a context of financial austerity which exacerbates social inequality. Substantial cuts at a national and regional level have impacted on the arts sector and generic‘non targeted’youth work services as well as other provisions that have supported children and young people. Cuts to social welfare have a disproportionate impact on low income parents and their children.
With this cluster of factors it is clear that Ovalhouse is working with children and young people facing very challenging social circumstances.The value of this creative educational work is recognised by theYouth Justice Board as a key factor in reducing the risk of excluded children engaging in offending behaviours.10 Youth Justice has also undergone significant changes in recent years, notably in the desire to create alternatives to custody.11 While the arts have been widely shown to contribute to strategies that ‘work’ with children and young people who may be otherwise hard to reach,12 there are still considerable challenges facing practitioners working to integrate children and young people‘at risk’of offending into mainstream education.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 4
The participants in Future Stages experience marginalisation as a result of personal circumstances, often relating to home environments. This, coupled with other factors such as learning difficulties, experience of trauma and mental health issues, corresponds with alienation from mainstream school environments. What is more, mainstream schools do not always have the experience or resources to manage children who present multiple behavioural challenges. Children and young people ‘at risk’ often demonstrate some of the following behaviours. They:
• May have experience of conflict, violence and uncertainty; • Have difficulties interacting with others in appropriate ways; • Have resistance to trying‘new’activities;13 • Experience poor concentration and difficulty in engaging with long discussions about art form practice; • Experience sudden changes in mood; • Have low-level repetitive behaviours e.g. chatting about issues‘off-task’or‘over talking’; • Have limited cultural and / or social horizons; • Limited articulacy; • May‘act out’; • May thrive on (negative) attention; • Struggle to collaborate; • Like to say‘no’;14 • Enjoy undermining or questioning authority.15
As this report demonstrates, while this provides a challenging context for structuring participatory interventions, professional arts practitioners, working in collaboration with PRU staff, can develop inspiring, challenging and transformational activities which begin to shift the dynamics of destructiveness, self- critique and isolation which characterise this cohort. Furthermore, they provide an inspiring model of peer support and collaboration that is socially positive rather than destructive.16
The creative approach engendered by drama has the capacity to reveal other social perspectives and other social behaviours (Turner, 1997: 191).17
Partnerships between agencies working with young people and arts organisations have made significant steps in engaging and motivating participants.18 But there is a need for a creative methodology to address early intervention and personal and social skills development as well as workforce development. Future
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 5
Stages is making an important contribution to developing these ways of working. Rather than offering fixed, absolute solutions, drama processes use techniques involving dialogue, consensus building and reflection to work on collective problem solving. This relates to good practice models of ethical engagement in participatory arts as set out below.
2.1 The Creating Change Network
The Creating Change Network, funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, was developed alongside Future Stages. With Ovalhouse as a core, coordinating partner, the Creating Change Network aims to build a sustainable network to support advocacy and learning for people within the arts sector involved in creative group work with children and young people at risk. Participating organisations have the opportunity to share practice and resources and develop strategies to promote and advocate for the sector. The network offers opportunities to work together to disseminate and celebrate best practice, raise the profile of dynamic group work and create dialogue in and outside the arts, creating sharing hubs across the UK.
To date the network has had great success, actively recruiting core members that use a range of art forms, including dance, music, drama, visual art and multimedia. As of April 2015, the network had enlisted 210 associate members. Through 16 regional meetings, a conference and networking events, the network has been in contact with 464 individuals and organisations. Part of this success has been delivering a well- attended and vibrant national conference, Creating Links, in December 2014. This event gathered those who are at the forefront of effective research and delivery in work with excluded and marginalised young people, including leading arts organisations, researchers, and representatives from local authorities and the voluntary sector. It considered how these sectors can jointly influence policy and work together so that“the most disadvantaged children and young people can make the most of their lives”.19
The Core Network members have shared practice and reviewed the outcomes of three Creative Leadership case studies in regard to the Arts Council / NFER / Shared Intelligence Quality Principles. One of the key areas of work has been the development of a set of agreed‘Quality Principles’which have contributed to the Arts Council’s Quality Principles second and third stage pilots.20 Round-table events for arts professionals took place in four regions and in-depth project case studies were carried out. These have been disseminated nationally, via the Creating Change website and conference.
Benefits identified by organisations involved in the network included:
• Networking in person and sharing projects, opportunities and resources on line • Sharing expertise (listening to presentations / discussions) • Developing a sense of community within this area of specialism • Opportunity to challenge and discuss practice in supportive environment • Having the opportunity to share ideas that have worked • Opportunity to share practice and learn from other organisations delivering similar work (Core).21
“Everything about the Creating Change Network embodies the quality principles we have helped Arts Council develop. From the very start our research has underscored the vital importance of creating a culture of reflection, peer review, and peer challenge and critique. You can do a lot remotely, but gathering people together in a room with a common language or indeed ‘principles’ is far more powerful.” Ben Lee – Shared Intelligence
The website provided very helpful resources for member organisations including reports, funding opportunities, related debates and examples of practice from the network. While the network is currently supported by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, its sustainability will be dependent on attracting further 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 6
resources, as well as continued co-ordination and good leadership. Although it has some support from academics, researchers and think tanks, it remains a group made up of relatively small organisations. While its ability to have wider impact at the level of policy is at present limited, there is scope to make links with organisations working with children, young people and social justice, e.g. Barnardo’s, British Association of Fostering and Adoption, etc.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 7
3 From Method to Methodology: The Ovalhouse Framework of Value
By activating the imagination through the exploration of metaphor, scenarios and imaginative possibilities and providing welcoming spaces of communication and reflection, Ovalhouse encourages participants to see themselves, and the world(s) they inhabit, with different eyes. This experience of participation in the arts is directly connected to that of wider participation in society. As Walsh (2013) states:
“The value of participatory arts – in partnership with education – is that they offer repertoires of inclusive, community-building activities that move beyond the aims of superficial behaviour-change and towards a deeper sense of skill and achievement”.
This relational aspect of participatory art is also recognised in the Arts Council’s strategic framework document‘Great Art and Culture for Everyone.’22
The Ovalhouse creative methodology, based on its principles of equality and social justice, combines the techniques or methods of role-play, forum theatre, storytelling and physical theatre to engage young people emotionally, intellectually and imaginatively. This value-led approach is at the heart of everything that Ovalhouse does as an organisation. As Stella Barnes, Director of Participation at Ovalhouse explains:
“The conditions for us are that our department is not hierarchical; we support people to make good decisions about their project rather than telling them what to do. It’s not a blame culture, mistakes and things that go wrong are part of the development of our work and they have to happen. They are a really necessary part of our work and learning. And we’re all people in development… I would be really worried if someone said to me ‘I always do it like this’.So those are the conditions, as well as making sure there are enough people there to make it safe, people are supported, and there is space for learning.” Barnes Interview 13/05/2015
This way of working has been described elsewhere as a Radical Ethical Framework.23 These principles of choice, equality respect, safety and competence underpin both the organisation’s theatre work and significantly, its organisational culture. It is a way of working that both complements and contrasts with the method-led or systems-led approach of theorists such as Augusto Boal. Although it draws on many of his methodologies and techniques,24 this value-led approach focuses on co-creation and is born out of a recognition that this work is often unpredictable, contingent, relational and emotional, responding to the complex dynamics at play.
In practice this approach is demanding and requires practitioners who are capable of constant reflection. This requires Ovalhouse practitioners having a number of core competencies:
• To negotiate and establish the shared values which underpin and inform the theatre-making process • To recognise the wider social and cultural issues within which this encounter is taking place • To navigate the complex ethical dilemmas which they encounter in co-producing theatre with participants • To reflect on experience and mistakes. The practice of co-facilitation ensures practitioners listen to each other and watch each other in the midst of theatre making workshops and give each other critical feedback afterwards • To learn from reflection. Reflection takes place on a number of levels. It may be within a session, immediately after a session or more detailed reflection at regular intervals in a programme • And, to be able to respond to challenges.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 8
3.1 The Value of Values
This framework provides an ethical value system within which Ovalhouse practitioners can develop their practice across their work: creating a safe space in which participants can take risks. In practice this means, for example, sensitivity with participants with regards to disclosing negative experiences they are uncomfortable with. As Stella Barnes has discussed elsewhere, it is not appropriate to ask vulnerable young people to discuss experiences of trauma in order to make‘refugee theatre’.
“At Ovalhouse we have developed a very strong ethical framework for our work with young refugees. We have made a clear choice not to focus on ‘refugeeness’ or to frame the young participants with an identity that they have not chosen. We have found it especially valuable to acknowledge the young people as who they are now – young Londoners – who have the potential to build a positive future here and have something to offer.” 25
Significantly, these ethical values and working practices can sometimes stand in contrast to those of some of the organisations and institutions they work with, such as PRUs or schools. These practices can often “operate as a parallel floating space”outside of an institution’s structures and boundaries. The parallel space allows young participants to begin to exercise agency, to explore their own ideals and values and the everyday and structural matters which impinge on these.
This is particularly important when the lives of the young people taking part have been subject to sanctions, exclusions and involuntary referrals. Ovalhouse practitioners work on the basis that participation should not be compulsory and no-one should be punished or sanctioned for not taking part.
Ovalhouse’s framework also includes a commitment to young people participating over time. It is testament to the inclusivity of Ovalhouse that participants often continue to be engaged with the organisation after completing a programme, going on to take part in further programmes and projects and in the organisation as a whole. This openness provides valuable experience of continuity for young people, especially those who are subject to the attention and scrutiny of a number of care and education teams.
3.2 Values and Evaluation
This value-led approach to engagement and theatre-making also has implications for evaluation. A participatory process that is open and unpredictable does not fit easily with evaluative frameworks that emphasise predetermined impact and outcomes. Instead Ovalhouse tries to explain the element of flexibility and unpredictability in its working practice to funders and suggest outcomes that are likely but cannot be guaranteed. This indeterminacy could be a risky strategy for some organisations but for Barnes this is possible due to the organisation’s credibility. As Barnes describes:
“Outcome driven funding presumes that everyone will have the same learning process and experience of transformation. It assumes that they are homogenous. People come to art with their own perspective on the world and their own baggage.” Barnes Interview 13/05/15
This highlights the importance of not confusing rigour with rigidity. Evaluation frameworks should be rigorous in terms of producing evidence that bears scrutiny. But if they become rigid in the sense of being over-prescriptive in terms of ‘expected’outcomes, they result in a theatre-based practice that risks becoming inflexible. Such rigidity is undesirable as it creates a ‘one size fits all’ approach which stifles what the Paul Hamlyn Foundation has termed ‘incremental innovation’: in this context where practice innovates by evolving in response to participants’ diverse and changing needs. If it cannot do this, it misses the opportunity of generating – and reporting on – other ‘unanticipated’outcomes that can be equally significant and beneficial for the individuals taking part. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 9
3.2.1 Replicability
The Ovalhouse values-led approach also challenges an over-simplistic view of replicability which views it as something which is transplanted rather than adapted.
“Funders are all really interested in replicability and I think we have to be really assertive about what we mean by this. I would be really worried if arts organisations get to a point where they were promoting a culture where you can pick a handbook / toolkit that you take off the shelf that tells you how to do a drama project in a children’s PRU week by week. If people did this without the principles that underpin it then that is unethical.”26
While guidelines can be of use (for example guidelines on working with young refugees)27 and tools helpful (such as a risk chart as a tool for participatory learning and evaluation), having an ‘off the peg’ programme risks over-simplifying the complexity of the very practices which make‘good practice’.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 10
4 Delivering Future Stages
In this section we look at the delivery of Future Stages in terms of its targets and achievements relating to the Creating Change Network, the training programme and work with young people.
Ovalhouse summarised the Future Stages ambitions and approach as:
“A participatory arts intervention programme supporting those at risk of social exclusion and offending underpinned by the theory and work of key theatre practitioners such as Augusto Boal. The programme is specifically designed to support young people from disadvantaged circumstances who find themselves on the brink of educational exclusion or other crises due to social exclusion, deprivation and risk factors. Working in partnership with local authorities, schools and Pupil Referral Units, the project aims to give young people effective life-long tools that they can use to maximise their strengths and build resilience, so breaking the cycle of deprivation, not only for themselves but also for their communities.” 28
The programme in its entirety has been a complex one with a number of interlinked strands of work as is illustrated by the diagram below. The various elements represented have connected with and fed into one another in different ways throughout the programme. Reflecting on, articulating and sharing practice and information, and learning, have been embedded within all aspects of the programme for all those involved.
Ovalhouse
Partners & FUTURE STAGES Creating Change Stakeholders PROGRAMME Network
Sessions with Training Evaluation Dissemination Young People
The Future Stages Programme has been well conceived and resourced, allowing for the necessary time to initiate and build relationships with key partners. The first year of delivery (following academic years Sept 2012 – June 2013) involved two settings, both of which were primary age PRUs based in South London (Lambeth and Southwark).
In reviewing the delivery and partnerships involved at the end of the first year the evaluation highlighted the fact that sessions didn’t operate in a void. A consideration of the social and institutional context they took place in was crucial if Future Stages was to achieve the fullest possible impact. This meant a genuine commitment to dialogue and learning between school staff and Ovalhouse practitioners. On a practical level this learning highlighted the need for consistency in the staff and participants, the sessions and within the wider life of the school.
In the second year of delivery, sessions continued in one PRU, Kennington Park Academy, whilst a new project called Pick&Mix was established and delivered at Ovalhouse. Here Ovalhouse“strategically decided to design an open access project to reach a wider demographic of young people at risk”.29 This required substantial development time with delivery beginning in January 2014 and continuing through to March 2015.30 Pick&Mix was initially focused on children in local authority care before it was extended to young 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 11
people identified as being ‘at risk’ by local schools or agencies, parents or carers, operating on an informal referral basis. The‘model’of delivery that had been honed through the PRU sessions was adapted to fit this new environment. However, this presented different circumstances and challenges. For example, levels of support available from school staff were lower, the children attending were not already a group (in comparison with the PRU sessions), and attendance was less consistent.
The delivery of sessions, on a term-by-term basis, was accompanied by a parallel development process that included planning, liaison and review. Each child participating had an informal one-to-one‘interview’with the Future Stages practitioners before the start of the programme. This was followed up by mid-year and end of the project interviews. This provided an opportunity for both the child and practitioner to get to know each other whilst simultaneously encouraging self-reflection and expression of aspirations and desires. It also offered a space in which to jointly consider personal development and progress. When the original interview didn’t happen at one school it made a difference to the relationship built between the practitioners and young people.
In reflecting on the process the Future Stages team recognised the learning needed to be embedded within professional practice and organisational development. This meant substantial outreach and liaison work in order to engage stakeholders including teachers, school staff, carers and parents, as well as Ovalhouse staff, volunteers, trainees and students. Subsequently a programme of training, which included a series of workshop-based sessions, was delivered to staff at the schools. The sessions included:
• Real Learning in Imagined Worlds: Teacher in role31 as a teaching and learning strategy • Screen printing to inspire creativity without pressure on children’s drawing skills and anxieties • Non-confrontational behaviour management techniques and de-escalation • An introduction to drama games and conventions that can be used to energise, claim focus and bond children in the classroom • An introduction to using the technique ‘Mantle of the Expert’32 to increase children’s engagement and confidence.
Some of this training was bespoke, responding to needs highlighted by school management. All of it was designed to offer methods that could be practically applied in their working environments.
The flexibility of the programme, together with its relatively long timescale, has allowed adaptation to the different groups and environments as it has rolled out. Young people at one PRU were additionally offered the opportunity to create a portfolio of work to gain accreditation through an Arts Award.33 This required a substantial commitment of time and resources from Ovalhouse and PRU staff as well as the young people but this aspect of the project was regarded as particularly successful by all involved; the impact of this kind of achievement for children, who experience under achievement in education due to their complex life circumstances, cannot be underestimated. The Deputy Head of one of the PRUs explained,“You can’t be proud of being in a PRU and so if they are proud of something it really stands out”.
4.1 The Numbers: Achievement against targets
Future Stages had a number of targets that it set out to achieve each year, which it tracked and reported on to funders. The table below summarises these, setting out the targets alongside the actual figures the project achieved. It is apparent from these that the programme surpassed all of its targets, which indicates effective delivery but also real demand.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 12
Table 1: Future Stages Delivery
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3* Total Target Delivery Target Delivery Target Delivery Target Delivery 20 20 20 20 20 21 Young people engaged Age Age Age Age Age Age 60 61 5-12 7-11 5-12 5-12 5-12 8-12
Young people reintegrated into mainstream No 6 No 2 No 3 No 11 or specialist provision within academic year Target Target Target Target
Number of workshops No 57 No 50 No 57 No 164 Target Target Target Target
INSET days 7 11 7 11 7 15 21 37
Numbers of people attending INSETs 60 151 60 165 60 196 180 512
Project Partners N/A 2 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 2**
* Delivery in Year ran from October to July with the first project (three terms) and from October to March (two terms) with the second. ** There were two PRU partners over the three years but additional schools, SENCOs, Key Workers and Safeguarding Leads involved with Pick&Mix.
In terms of Creating Change there were targets but these were relatively straightforward and in keeping with the developmental nature of the work involved. In bringing together a group of peer organisations the agenda needed to be open so that they could, collectively, discuss this and identify common ground and purpose. The targets were defined as:
Advocacy: InYear 1 we will develop partnerships with six organisations (four national / regional and two from London). We will have two network meetings – to agree key messages and develop a stakeholder engagement plan. By the end of Year 1 we will have had five meetings with strategic stakeholders.
Advocacy: In Year 2 we will develop partnerships with two or three partner organisations from under- represented areas as well as associate members from smaller organisations. We will have three network meetings – to agree the content of messages to key stakeholders and plan the content of the website.
The table below details the key milestones involved in the development of the Creating Change Network and the numbers achieved in relation to these. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 13
Table 2: Creating Change Network
Number of network meetings (regional and national) 163
Meetings with strategic stakeholders 15
Number of strategic stakeholders identified 23
Number of organisations / individuals contacted 464
Number of organisations interested in engaging at a strategic level 210*
Number of website users 923
Number of core members (representing different regions and art forms) 11 organisations**
*As at April , plus a further enquiries from organisations to join the network. **Eight national / regional and three from London
4.2 Training and Dissemination
In addition to their specific work with partner schools, Ovalhouse ran a programme of INSETs offered to Ovalhouse staff, non-arts professionals and other arts professionals alongside partner schools. The rationale for this was:
• To embed learning in education partners’settings so there would be a legacy • To disseminate learning to a wider range of practitioners (especially emerging practitioners) in order to have a positive impact on the participatory arts sector.
Over Years 1 and 2 of Future Stages, Ovalhouse planned a total of 14 training days (seven per year) with a minimum of 120 people attending (60 per year). High levels of demand meant these targets were exceeded by 60%. In total they delivered 22 training sessions, which engaged a total of 512 people over the three-year period.
The INSETs were well received by staff from partner schools and external practitioners alike and teachers in particular were enthusiastic about the potential of working in this way:
“The INSET was constructive, revealing and energising. In two sessions an amazing amount of work was done. But in so doing revealed how much more could be addressed.” Deputy Head, Kennington Park Academy
Additional training was also offered to BA and MA students at Goldsmiths College, Royal Central School of Speech and Drama and the University of East London, disseminating the methodology, principles and practice even further. Ovalhouse staff also undertook Arts Award training in order to facilitate the young 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 14
people’s participation in this scheme. The importance of being able to offer them this additional outcome has been noted above.
Ovalhouse staff also undertook ‘Team Teach’ training as recommended by the PRU. This involves de-escalation techniques and the safe handling of children.
4.3 Young People Reached
Future Stages staff worked closely with partners to engage with specific groups of children, identified as being at risk and vulnerable. It met its targets in terms of numbers of young people engaged, but didn’t seek to surpass these. This was because the high level needs of the children involved and the nature of the group work necessitated small group work with a high ratio of practitioners and staff.
Over the three years (2012 to 2014) Future Stages worked with a total of 61 young people (aged between 5 and 12), meeting their target of 20 a year, and delivered 164 sessions in two PRU settings and one open referral project based at Ovalhouse. In addition to the scheduled term-based sessions, extra sessions were programmed to focus on the Arts Award accreditation activities. Furthermore practitioners took participants on a number of theatre visits, to venues such as the Little Angel Theatre and the National Theatre, and engaged them in intergenerational activities through the Stockwell Good Neighbours project.34 These kinds of events were exciting for the children and seen as a chance to broaden their experiences and help in the development of social skills and confidence. The main focus of the work being to achieve notable progress in “at least one of the following areas: Self Awareness, Emotional Literacy, Social Skills, and Sense of Responsibility.”Evidence of this progress being“demonstrated with the help of the evaluation framework.”
In Year 3 of the project the delivery continued with both Kennington Park Academy PRU (for the full academic year) and with Pick&Mix (for two terms again). A total of 53 sessions were delivered to a total of 21 children. Attendance by individual children was not always consistent over the year, affected by a number of factors including PRU children being re-integrated into mainstream school and the individual circumstances of the parents or carers of Pick&Mix participants, but this was to be expected with this particular cohort. Building on the success of the first year the young people were given (internal) opportunities to share their own work as well as attending theatre trips and visits, which notably increased their sense of achievement.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 15
5 Evaluation Methodology and Approach
This section describes the evaluation approach, role, processes and activities throughout the Future Stages evaluation carried out by the CUCR team in collaboration with Ovalhouse and key partners.
5.1 Developing the Future Stages Evaluation Framework
Future Stages embedded learning at the outset, which is consistent with its reflective practice, where reflection and review is on-going and continually feeds back into informing subsequent practice. The evaluation was part of this ethos of learning and needed to be flexible in order to respond to the learning and adaptation at the heart of the project.
The evaluation sought to be a resource to the programme, offering space for dialogic review and feedback, both with individuals and groups. Whilst the programme has held to its original aims and targets, it has at various points adapted to changing circumstances and to lessons arising, for example the delivery ceased in one of the original PRUs which then resulted in the Pick&Mix project which also targeted vulnerable young people within a different format. The evaluation therefore needed to be able to shift to accommodate this kind of development.
One of the initial evaluation tasks was to look at all of the evaluation tools and materials that Ovalhouse used across its work. Evaluation was clearly something that Ovalhouse used as part of its practice and there was a wealth of different tools. All of the practitioners involved (two with each delivery strand) were interviewed as well as the Future Stages Co-ordinator, in order to understand how they structured and recorded their work and what they thought were the indicators of achievement with the children they were working with. This led to the development of three tools that were tailored to Future Stages: the engagement matrix, session log and young people’s baseline self-assessment (see Appendices). The practitioners agreed to trial these over a term so that we could then review how they had worked, what data they had produced and if they were fit for purpose.
The tools were then honed in accordance with the practitioners’ feedback and used across the delivery. The evaluation then took on a new team member with expertise in data collection and analysis to look at the information that was emerging and how best to present this. The main findings and recommendations from the evaluation methodology and approach are in the final section of this report. However it is useful to highlight here that the experience has underlined the need for different types of data that enhance one another offering triangulation points, and that given the specific context of any programme there needs to be the flexibility to adapt how this is collected responsively; that is data may or may not produce the information you are seeking and therefore being able to adapt tools or methods depending on the feedback you receive is likely to be more effective in the long term.
Participatory arts practice incorporates reflective practice; this characteristic facilitates reflective evaluative methods. In order to be able to collect the kinds of evidence that would assess impact with a focus on the levels of participation and the impact for young people, staff, stakeholders and organisations it was necessary to first understand the Future Stages Programme as part of Ovalhouse’s methodology and practice and framework of values.
An evaluation framework was developed at the project outset as a ‘working’ document; that is it provided a basis from which the evaluation methodology would develop in dialogue between the Future Stages team, the CUCR evaluation team, and, where appropriate, stakeholders. In accordance with this the portfolio of evaluation tools used by Ovalhouse was reviewed and preliminary interviews were carried out with key staff including practitioners involved in delivering the Future Stages sessions. Whilst there was an obvious 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 16
need to collect data, the evaluation team wanted to do this in ways that dove-tailed with the programme development and delivery without adding too much to the delivery team’s workload.
5.1.1 Evaluation Tools
An engagement matrix, session log and young person’s self-assessment questionnaire were developed. The first two were designed to be used during the review period at the end of the delivery of each engagement session in order to facilitate reflection and the questionnaire as part of the baseline one-to-one interviews. These tools were designed to capture the engagement levels of individual participants and assess their progress in relation to the key areas of self-awareness, emotional literacy, social skills, sense of responsibility, teamwork, confidence and resilience. They offered a simple and consistent record of the session activities, outcomes, issues, learning and observations.
The evaluation has collected a large set of data arising from these tools as well as other sources. This includes: • Engagement matrices and session logs for all of the sessions • Baseline and one-to-one session records • Interviews with Future Stages staff and practitioners • Review meetings with the Future Stages team • Interview with PRU staff including teachers and TAs • Informal interviews with parents and carers • Session observations • INSET attendance and observations • Programme information, data and documentation (e.g. funding reports, ACE case study write up) • Project work – Arts Awards portfolios, etc. • Practitioner practice reviews • Background information on individual young people.
Example of the Balloon exercise designed to be used as part of an initial one-to-one meeting to prompt discussion of a child’s hopes and fears.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 17
6 Findings: The difference the project has made
In this section we explore what difference the project has made for young people, for practitioners and staff, and for the organisations involved. We also look at how it has done this, what are the key elements contributing to impact and how we can evidence and assess these changes.
6.1 For Young People:‘Being taken on a journey’
“FormanyoftheyoungpeopleFutureStagesworkswithitprovidesasafecontextinwhichtoplayouttheir hopes and fears and offers them the opportunity to think of themselves as active participants in effecting change.” Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 2014
The project is very much about journeys: the young people’s development or personal journeys and their imaginative and creative journeys, which are at the centre of the workshops. In following the journeys of individuals and of groups it has been important to establish individual starting points and then the characteristics of the processes and practice that enable them to move forwards. Finally we consider what they have gained from their journey, the personal growth, the changes and benefits that Future Stages has been a catalyst for.
6.1.1 Starting points
One of the key things the evaluation set out to establish was the baseline starting point of the young people participating. Practitioners were clear that understanding and capturing progress could only be done against a baseline. Evaluation notes from an early session review (November 2012) describe the practitioners talking about:
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 18
“The ways that we notice behavioural change and engagement. These are often through small details of body language and can only really be noticed or understood through working and building relationships with the children. For example making Joe smile when most of the time his face is mask-like and expressionless and he sits, apparently disengaged outside of the group and activities. The measures therefore need to be different for each child, and they each have individual behaviours and starting points.”
All of the children that Future Stages worked with were vulnerable and‘at risk’often with multiple issues and barriers to engagement including ADHD35, depression, anger-management issues, dyslexia, autism, precocious puberty36, mainstream exclusion, diagnosed Emotional Behavioural Difficulties (EBD), bullying, attachment disorder, etc. Their home lives are often difficult and situations include being in care, parents with mental health issues, witnessing domestic violence, housing issues (e.g. living in a refuge), refugee families without status, concerns of abuse / grooming and family involved in gang crime.
This baseline drew on school information on individual children and the practitioners’ baseline based on the one-to-one informal interview with each child. There needed to be a careful balance with regards to disclosure of information about individual circumstances; whilst the Ovalhouse team held the school information (a ‘thumbnail’ summary of each child), the practitioners opted to not have access to this prior to meeting a child to avoid preconceptions that might affect their own relationship building. However information was shared with school staff and practitioners, for example at the end of session reviews, where it was pertinent to individual or group behaviour. This might include changes in family circumstances, diagnoses or medication, or friction between members of the group. With the Pick&Mix group the same level of information was not available given the different access routes to the project; it was an after school activity based on self-referral or recommendation via a school.
Baseline data was also collected directly in the one-to-one sessions with practitioners and children before the sessions began, and were an important first step in relationship building. Each child was asked about their hopes and fears, things they liked and didn’t like in terms of behaviour and attitudes and therefore their aspirations in terms of the programme. This later offers a point to reflect back on, as Chrissie Tiller writes: 37
“They are offered the opportunity to reflect on the choices they made in role and why they might have been different. It helps them have insight into their own behaviour. When collecting baseline data, for example, they often think they are good at certain skills such as working together as a team and score themselves quite highly at the beginning. Midway through the sessions and after they have taken part in reflection, they may score themselves lower. But it’s a conscious recognition; often based on their reflections of how their behaviour in role differed from their usual behaviour in the classroom. As one of the team noted, ‘It’s as if they have moved from unconscious to conscious incompetence by recognising they still have to work at certain things, like listening and paying attention to others and working cooperatively.”
6.1.2 Levels of participation and engagement
The levels of participation and engagement are directly related to a complexity of factors surrounding the project as well as the specific set of issues and circumstances of each of the children. With both the PRU delivery and the Pick&Mix sessions there were external factors that meant that there was inevitable inconsistency in terms of attendance. In the PRUs children might be reintegrated into mainstream education or moved to a different provision. With Pick&Mix the aim was to‘support young people at a time of crisis due to family instability’ and this instability could affect parent or carer ability to commit to regular attendance. However, not unsurprisingly, where there was greatest consistency of delivery38 and regular attendance over sustained periods of time the levels of participation and engagement were highest. Session logs with specific groups from the beginning of the academic year evidence this when compared with those towards the end of the academic year. The young people who have continued to attend show marked improvement, despite being typically those for whom sustained focus and participation in activities and working in groups is difficult. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 19
Looking at the engagement level data gathered it is immediately apparent that where there is progress this does not follow a straightforward rising trajectory. In trying to ascertain if any patterns of engagement were detectable the individual engagement levels were merged and whilst this is not definitive, the suggestion is that a typical term of sessions starts at mid-level and then goes through a series of peaks and troughs with a higher end level. The graph below shows the amalgamated engagement levels for delivery in one of the PRUs over four terms of sequential delivery.
Engagement level – KPA: Average evaluation per session
6
5
4
3
2 Average Evaluation 1
0 Spring 2013 Autumn 2013 Spring 2014 Summer 2014
This data has emphasised the fact that not only is engagement affected by individuals’ particular circumstances and issues, but that these each affect the group dynamic. The graph shows that over time the level is more regular and generally at a good overall level with a few notable highs or lows. Additional data (narrative / qualitative) about each session is however needed to make sense of the particular peaks and dips. The practitioners have collectively reviewed their delivery each term and reflected on the sessions in terms of what has worked or what they might do differently subsequently. For example early on, one particularly challenging session where the children set each other off ‘like popcorn’ was reviewed and changes were implemented to ensure this was avoided in the future.
Reading the individual accounts of children’s engagement in sessions (the example below is from session logs KPA 2014) reveals the fact that engagement levels oscillate and maintaining them is an on-going challenge for both the young people and practitioners.
• Distracted at start. Took part more than ever has this term. Controlled hyperactivity well. • After a difficult start she recovered well, contributed positive ideas, stayed in role for over 15mins sustaining drama and positive mood. • Twisted on chair and faced out of circle a lot. Lack of eye contact. Had to be invited to participate. • Seemed anxious and a little distant. Didn’t work well as part of the team. Struggled to cooperate. Was restless throughout.
One of the evaluation team attended the final session of the summer term 2014 at Ovalhouse. What was most notable about observing the session was conversely, that there was nothing that made apparent that the children present had any issues with regards to engagement or learning. They were, as a group, engaged and clearly enjoying the session together with the staff from the school, playing their part in the check ins, games and role-based activities.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 20
6.1.3 Space to be a child
The physical, emotional, and imaginative safe space that is created in the sessions is fundamental to Ovalhouse’s approach to its drama-based dynamic group work. The recognition of the importance of this space, and the effects of it, have been highlighted throughout the evaluation.
The space created is different from anywhere else; it is not school or home and different boundaries apply. At first this is difficult for the children to encounter, particularly as these may be unspoken behavioural ethics and boundaries that are tested in order to understand where the perimeters are. There aren’t the usual or expected responses to challenging behaviour either, but instead underlying positive reinforcement with reward as participation and enjoyment. One TA noted “how holistic the setting is compared to the school” which the practitioners found easier to create at Ovalhouse rather than within a discrete space at a school.
A teacher concurred and said that they thought it worked better because if there was a problem at the school the child might simply leave the room, which doesn’t happen at Ovalhouse. She went on to say that they behave differently out of class and with different people and working with Ovalhouse offers the opportunity to do this. She said that it has enabled them to be“taken on a longer journey”and that they are willing to experiment more because of this special space that is removed from the more usual school environment. Another member of staff commented, “the children – they have to put on a front but really they are scared. It allows them to just be children. There is pressure to be hard, to seem older.” This was likewise echoed in the second PRU where the teacher said,“It brings out other sides of their characters that are not usually seen or shown, and it allows them to be softer and less armoured.”She added“it’s about them as a whole person” and not having to “project a persona”. Many of them are “used to being a label” and it offers them freedom from this.
The practitioners very consciously create this singular space employing theatre and dynamic group work strategies. Key elements of this include the use of ritual39, which signifies the start or entry into the space, how individuals participate in the session and how it is brought to an end. This‘space’is fundamental to the model of practice that Ovalhouse has developed, drawing on key principles of dynamic group work and theatre-based participatory arts practice. Aylwyn Walsh40 describes this approach:
“It is important that projects are constructed around a sense of ‘safe space’. This emerges as spatial – for example, as participants enter the workshop / session space there is a signaled shift in atmosphere with the use of music, colour, greeting rituals. Safe space is also constructed as a set of mutually defined (and revised) behaviours that include respect, the negotiation of ground rules, etc. These might begin, for example, with a discussion on voice levels if a participant becomes agitated by sudden noises.”
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 21
1. Future Stages Teacher in Role
The first teacher in role session with any group in the Future Stages Programme will often begin with the young people encountering a character. Frequently this character is a person or creature that is lost in some way or needs their help. The narrative of the drama is often based around a theme rather than focusing on an existing story. For example, one popular drama centres round a mission to outer space. It might begin with the young people being set a riddle, the answer to which leaves them having to decide whether they want to be part of the team of astronauts who need to find the answer. Some of the early work then focuses on helping them decide what they might need to undertake such a mission and what they will need to take with them. (from Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 2014)
6.1.4 Developing self-awareness, emotional literacy, social skills, a sense of responsibility
Future Stages is based on the premise that for young people, and particularly those deemed ‘at risk’, participatory arts can offer a way of developing new social skills, of developing greater self-awareness that enables more positive behaviours and relationships. Aylwyn Walsh’s research has explored this across the sector and she concludes that:
“Arts practices open up possibilities in ways that formal mainstream education activities (for example) do not. This is not simply because art is about freedom, chaos or silliness, but in fact, because there is a discipline, focus and centre to be identified in arts practices that ‘feels different’ to the rules and regulations of a classroom. Art forms make use of various embodied practices that require concentration, self-awareness, awareness of space and other people and an understanding that all actions have consequences. These practices, developed over time, can foster a sense of the following transferable skills:
• Increased confidence • Emotional literacy • Group work and co-operation • Ability to relax • Focus (often manifest uniquely to the arts discipline) • Awareness of alternative behaviours.” 41
Future Stages aimed to impact on the young people specifically in regards to developing self-awareness, emotional literacy, social skills and a sense of responsibility, with the intention of seeing improvement in at least one of these areas. Additionally it had interest in promoting teamwork, confidence and resilience. Therefore the evaluation tools were designed to record any observable changes or progress in these areas from individual baseline start points, which were enhanced by interviews with key staff and team review meetings.
Applying a theory of change rationale in the programme activities (delivery of workshops in this instance), we see short term outcomes including the young people’s engagement in sessions which then led to intermediate outcomes such as increased self-awareness and emotional literacy, with the end goal being the individual developing more positive behaviours which enable them to re-engage with education. Future Stages does not make claims about being the sole source for this kind of change, but because of its partnership work of sharing practice and shifting school culture it can be seen to be a key driver.
The data collected through the engagement matrix and session logs has been collated and analysed to produce infographs that combine the two sets of information42. Importantly the matrix was adapted to 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 22
include prompts referring to the four specific areas of personal development.
Focusing on one group over a term of delivery (Autumn 2014) in a PRU, the data initially shows the variability in terms of the individual children. Whilst some have consistently high levels of engagement (from involvement to success) others fluctuate widely. The observation notes are useful in highlighting individual issues (for example difficulty in staying focused) and also what success looks like for each child. The following records of the last three sessions for one participant offer a good illustration:
• Managed very well considering he is dealing with quite severe ADHD. • Has become more generous and taking turns. • Focus was better this week, was good audience for one sharing and put his hand up to give ideas for a few times. • Enjoyed the activity and watching others. • Was patient in the counting game and made positive contribution to drama.
These brief notes show that he has made progress with awareness of himself and others through his involvement in the activities. However notes for another child show that the journey is not so smooth and the notes record him provoking other children in the group. Early on entries included:
• Testing boundaries. • We know there is underlying anxiety around school placement. • Found the drawing and sharing activities very challenging.
However by session nine there is clear improvement:
• Was much more focused. • In role work very good. • Higher responsibility for the group, better listening, imaginative.
But in the final two sessions his engagement has decreased again and he is more difficult in the session which underlines the fact that there is no simple progressive trajectory and real development and behavioural change requires time and repetition.
Looking at the group as a whole (seven young people consistently attending) they each display development in at least one of the cited areas of focus. Additionally focus, generosity, teamwork, resilience and confidence are all behaviours that are commented on. Where there was longer engagement with the project (over an academic year) the progress is consolidated and evidential.
In interviews staff were asked to reflect on changes they had observed in their pupils as a result of the Future Stages project. They talked about the process, how progress built over time for both the young people and the staff. For example one teacher said:
“There was a turning point when the graffiti artist came. The kids saw immediate results. We started to breathe with them and able to enjoy it too and to relax a bit more.”
Whilst with this particular group there had been a lack of consistency with changes of staff and pupils she said that when new children came into the session“they loved it”, the parameters and rituals had been established and“it got better and better and better...”
She was asked for her view on what they might have got from the sessions that was then transferred into their school life. She said that the use of language was a big plus – speaking and listening. For example she 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 23
noticed that they used content and expression in their writing that they had first explored and used in the session. She definitely thinks it helped to push their levels up (re SATs). This teacher’s class had real issues with any kind of group work at the start. However with her input and the work of Ovalhouse they bonded much better.
She also said that “they became much better at vocalising, drama is such an important resource, of acting out and understanding how others might think and being able to do this as a character”with distance enabling them to explore feelings, emotions and reactions.
In the second year of delivery in one PRU, Ovalhouse worked with a class of year 6 pupils as the school felt the programme would work really well in helping to prepare them for the transition into secondary school. The class teacher considered any changes that she had observed over the year and said that they are “far more co-operative and communicative with each other and more able to support each other”and that the group dynamic has changed. She felt it not only helped prepare them for school transition but“for life more generally”.For example she said that acting is aspirational for some of them and one pupil also subsequently went to Ovalhouse after school provision.
She talked about one pupil who has been going through a court case with regards to his care and how he demonstrates his need in the drama space, for example displaying a need for attention. She also said that as a result of the Ovalhouse sessions the children are more willing to work with other adults in the school and so the learning from the sessions feeds back into the school environment.
She said that it is good in that it responds to the different ways that children learn (e.g. kinaesthetic). She added“certain children shine”and that it is so important with these children that they do have opportunities to shine and to feel good about themselves. She added that they are“not learning lines kind of children”and that kind of drama doesn’t work for them – it needs to be more improvised. And that is the kind of drama and assemblies that they would have been expected to do in mainstream. Interestingly she said that you wouldn’t get the same creativity or collaboration from them if you asked them to write. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 24
2. Future Stages Teacher in Role
Beingpartofthecreationoftheseimaginaryworldsinthisway,andindecidingthingssuchashowoneshould behave within them, gives the young people a genuine sense of self-esteem. Because they have created the story themselves, their emotional commitment to the drama is usually greaterand theimpact ofthe learning often deeper. Things such as turn taking, which can sometimes be hard for these particular young people, especially in more formal learning situations, happen more naturally within the shared creative process.
Whilst other drama work may teach them specific skills, which they enjoy, it can also seem closer to the rest of the young people’s school experience where they frequently feel judged and often found to be failing. Teacher in role work reverses these expectations by placing them immediately in the role of the expert or the one who has the ideas. Given the remit to be creative and come up with solutions they frequently find themselves able to do so. Although nothing explicit is ever said, the young people quickly recognise they are being placed in a different position to that which they find themselves in other educational settings. As they engage with the character created by the teacher in role they begin to recognise their response is what matters and, by accepting this responsibility, take on control of the story and ownership of the action.
By offering them the possibility to project themselves into imagined worlds of their own creation, in role work can offer the young people the possibility to test out their aspirations or try out new behaviours. Not only can they explore different feelings but they can also experiment with responding differently to social situations and moral dilemmas that may parallel those they encounter in the real world. Working in role allows them to practice life skills in an environment that may be distanced from their reality but offers important parallels. (from Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 2014)
Another teacher involved with the first year of delivery in the same PRU also noted how the use of drama was particularly beneficial for some children. He spoke of one child who “had huge behavioural difficulties but found it very easy to take on roles.” He said, “It was good for us [staff] to see this particular strength and it offeredhimsomethingtohanghisself-esteemon.”Asaresulthesaidhebecamemorecontrolledandself-aware.
Hestatedthatsomeofthepupilsareontheautismspectrumandempathyisdifficultbutthisencouragedthinking about how you might feel and therefore how a character or another might feel. For those who are hyperactive it offers them a way of channelling their energy. He said, “I think they all grew up as a result of the group”.
The specific areas that both he and the Deputy Head had observed improvement in were cited as –
• Emotional intelligence • Using life skills • Self esteem • Working in pairs and groups • Appreciating each other.
6.2 For Staff:‘Get into the circle’
One of the arguably unanticipated outcomes of Future Stages has been the difference it has made to staff within the PRUs. Whilst some of this can be seen as intended, in terms of the INSET delivery, the impact has been evidenced beyond this and can be seen to have had an effect at both individual and organisational level. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 25
The extent of the impact correlated with the relationship between Ovalhouse and the school; how this was prioritised, negotiated and managed. The simultaneous delivery in the first year of the project in two PRUs illustrated the variables to this and highlighted the fact that there needs to be‘buy in’from staff at both delivery and management levels to ensure the fullest impact for all those involved.
The evaluation followed the development of relationships between staff and their organisations over the project lifetime. In both PRUs there was support from specific individuals, whilst others within the schools were perhaps more hesitant or less involved. Practitioners appreciated support from teachers but recognised that there needed to be ‘balance’; this articulates the need for mutual understanding, co-operation and recognition of expertise between the two fields of practice, which grew gradually over time.
Early on in the delivery there were instances of school staff seeing it as their role to manage the young people’s behaviour and get them to participate, whereas the Ovalhouse practitioners have different strategies. Two of the practitioners spoke about the importance of allowing the children to give voice to emotions and that they create the space for this expression even when these maybe difficult or negative. However there were boundaries about how an emotion might be expressed for example being angry was OK but showing this through being aggressive (e.g. throwing chairs) was not. These different responses or strategies and different boundaries took time to be understood, respected and even trusted. This was especially difficult for school staff who felt responsible for the children and therefore carried the weight of risk, both for the children and for their participation.
Practitioners interviewed have described ways in which culturally, the programme has had a noticeable effect on the school over time with the staff learning a lot from their practice. They mentioned “giving the staff the opportunity to behave differently with the young people”. For example when they first worked with one TA he would use his physicality to maintain control if necessary but by the end of a year of working with Future Stages he had become part of the group, taking part in the sessions with the young people and appearing happy and relaxed, but without having lost his authority.
Interviews with school staff have also reflected on the learning involved in this collaboration:
“We are still working through our management of behaviour here. So yes it is difficult. We were tighter because we were working with people we didn’t know – [we] became more relaxed.”
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 26
They talked about working with peers when there is a level of confidence and trust that is unspoken and innate, and that this was building with the Ovalhouse staff. There was however emphasis on the fact the school staff are coming from a different place and practice; they felt that the‘bottom line’is that as teachers they have a duty of care and therefore have to continually manage risk. They too recognised the importance of time in establishing this kind of work with one teacher stating that it wasn’t until about two and a half terms in that it“really clicked”.This was helped by the practitioners being around before and after the session and staying for lunch in the school, which helped them be seen as a part of the school community.
He went on to say that there were real benefits to working together, and that he and the TA valued being part of a new project and curriculum and “seeing how things could be done differently”. His advice to colleagues was“Get into a circle – there is no room for someone to sit on the outside”.
3. Future Stages Teacher in Role
It needs time to look at how one can meet the individual needs of the young people within the drama as well as their group dynamics: their creative as well as their social needs. It needs time to develop one’s own learning in terms of exploring new art forms that could be used within the drama, new approaches to running sessions, sharing some of the barriers that might face young people in really participating. And in working with others to see how young people might be supported in recognising some of the behaviours they have practised in the drama might become part of their reality outside the sessions. (from Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 2014)
6.3 Partnerships and Organisational Learning:‘It’s such a beautiful fit’
The partnerships developed through Future Stages, and the organisational interaction involved, have offered rich opportunities for learning. The programme has provided learning opportunities for school staff and practitioners as well as their organisations, whilst indicating some of the key characteristics needed for effective partnerships to deliver this type of initiative.
The project has offered three instances of delivery in three different settings. Two of these were in PRUs43 and one was a mixed group session at Ovalhouse. The experiences of delivering the programme in the first year at the two PRUs simultaneously were markedly different; whereas in the first we saw a genuine‘buy in’from the school, in the second the interest in the project was confined to the teacher involved. She was asked about whether there were benefits for, and impact on, the school as a whole and responded,“no I’m afraid to say” but “me – yes”. She went on to explain that she didn’t feel the school were on board and that the Future Stages sessions felt separate to the rest of the life of the school.
This experience is in stark contrast to the first where from the outset both the staff who participated in the sessions and senior management were interested in and supportive of the project. However this wasn’t necessarily straightforward as practitioners reported some wariness on the part of other members of the staff team as well as staff new to the sessions who didn’t understand their approach particularly with regards to establishing boundaries. But because of the commitment of the school to the partnership these kinds of issues were given the time and consideration needed for understanding and trust to grow at individual and organisational levels.
This has been enabled through the mutual exchange of information and practice. For example having the class teacher involved in the review at the end of each session has been vital, as one of the practitioners comments: 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 27
“Having [the teacher] in the evaluation was invaluable, she was able to contextualise the behaviour of students in the sessions and I found that at times a revelation. Unfortunately in the final term she was unable to attend these debriefs, this was a great shame as we lost a key insight into the world of the students beyond our sessions.”
Ovalhouse was receptive to the views of the school and responsive in terms of delivery. For example after the first year a number of staff felt that the session would work best with the Year 6s “who need to explore identity issues” and are at the point of transition from primary to secondary school which then happened. A teacher described the process whereby the school and Ovalhouse tried different things but reached the point where they collaboratively honed the structure and “it works well”. She said that they have found a “common ground” and therefore this was in her view “the optimum” which had led to the last two years of delivery being“very successful”.
There were a series of INSET training days running alongside the sessions which involved the whole school staff team. These have helped the two organisations build a strong connection and respect in terms of practice. The school actually paid for several of these INSETs which points to their valuing of them and investment in the relationship. These were tailored to the school in that the content was built on areas of work that had been specifically requested. In the INSET the Future Stages practitioners clearly responded to the staff as‘the experts’in their field and offered them tools, insights and strategies into their own practice. After one of the INSET days, which focused on dealing with challenging behaviour, the Deputy Head commented that she had never seen her staff sharing in the way they had during the session. Another participant said that they really liked the fact that the training wasn’t lecture based but active. A third said, “What was particularly good is that it has real application for the work the PRU does. What you deliver was tailored to them and to the children whom they work with. Lots of people deliver training but this was actually useful and different because of its tailoring.” The practitioners too have noted how, in working with the school over time, the attitudes towards them have shifted and become more open. The INSETs have been a major part of the relationship building, embedding practice and wider impact of Future Stages.
Pick&Mix exemplified a very different approach to delivery in that it did not rely on a single host partner. Instead Ovalhouse hosted the project liaising with a large number of agencies in order to recruit young people including social services and schools (they contacted 120 and spoke with 80). Whilst they were able to make this model work there were a number of issues including less consistency of attendance, difficult group dynamics, no additional staff support (unlike PRUs), little prior knowledge of the child’s background and any issues, the amount of resources needed to establish and engage the group. The sessions were very
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 28
difficult given the behaviour issues and needs of the children and the staff learnt a lot about working with each other and managing this. This has been recorded at their project review sessions and can usefully inform similar delivery going forward. Considering this alongside the delivery in PRUs it is suggested that identifying several key partners (for example a number of local schools) that could refer children and work more closely with Ovalhouse staff, might be a way of mitigating some of the issues that arose, as there was an unarguable need for, and benefit from, the sessions for the children taking part.
Future Stages has demonstrated that there needs to be very specific things in place for the project to realise its full potential for young people, staff and organisations. Essential to this are strong partnerships with schools or other agencies that form the architecture of the project, offering support and resources that surround the actual face-to-face delivery. The following key elements need to be considered and prioritised:
• Time: to establish the sessions, build engagement, patterns, understanding and relationships between the pupils and practitioners • Relationship building: organisational and professional – between staff from Ovalhouse and the school • Resources: time to plan and to review, staff dedicated to the programme, attending regularly and involved in reviewing and exchanging information and support • Partnership working: between school and staff collaboratively – that the programme is‘built in’,and that there is ‘buy in’ not parachuting in and out of the sessions. That this ‘buy in’ comes from both teaching staff and management.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 29
6.4 How Do You Teach These Skills?
So how does one begin to pass these skills on to teachers and drama practitioners who may be less confident in working in this way? At Ovalhouse there is a strong tradition of new practitioners working almost as ‘apprentices’ alongside more specialised members of the team. This means the values behind the work, as well as the methodology are shared. Future Stages teams work across the whole Participation department, thus disseminating their experience, practice and ethical values to other areas of Ovalhouse’s work with young people. Focusing on shared values, such as social justice, as well as methodologies and practice, means the work is grounded within a common framework. Ovalhouse has taken a lead in sharing this way of working through its INSETs for teachers and artists; understanding that even if values and an ethical underpinning are at the core of this work there are also particular competences that can be shared and learned through workshop based training:
• Developing improvisational skills clearly helps teachers and practitioners develop the ability to trust themselves and others within the creative process. Learning to respond to what the young people offer and resist our inbuilt tendency to‘block’spontaneous and creative ideas before we have even developed 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 30
them is particularly important for those who want to work with the young people’s contributions to the drama: especially when these can often be weird and wonderful. • Learning to be more considered in the use of language is also central to the process: particularly when trying to indicate status or encouraging young people to think about using a different register. Helping teachers and practitioners develop and practice; open questioning techniques can therefore be crucial. Starting interventions with phrases such as ‘What if we….?’ or ‘I wonder if …..’? is much more likely to keep the creative and imaginative space open. Skillful questioning can also be used to remind everyone that they have entered into a shared agreement and that these are‘the rules of the game’. • Discovering how to ‘hold’ a session, when young people are as much players as anyone is equally important. It means the teacher / practitioner learning to resist the desire to decide beforehand where they might like to get to within a story or a session. It means gaining the confidence to be generous and ‘say yes’ to ideas the young people suggest, even if they take the drama in an unexpected direction. In particular it means learning to‘scan the room’so that one can always be ready to pick up on these ideas. • Fostering the use of metaphor, particularly when wanting to address some of the more complex issues that affect these young people’s lives, is crucial. By‘distancing’the creative and imaginative work from the young people’s own lives it creates a safe space in which to take some risks, develop empathy and understanding for others and investigate alternative behaviours.
Most of these skills and ways of working can only be acquired through experiential learning. This is why
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 31
Ovalhouse offers teachers and practitioners the opportunity to take part in ‘in role’ drama workshops as a way of becoming more confident in using this approach. Although there are books to be read by leading practitioners in this field, such as the work of Dorothy Heathcote44, Cecily O’Neill45 or Gavin Bolton46, this is a way of working where participation needs to come first.
One of the most important skills to develop, however, for those working in this context, is the ability to reflect and be reflective as a practitioner or teacher. Although many teachers and arts practitioners do undertake reflection as part of their on-going practice, it often remains part of an unconscious process. Much of the knowledge acquired remains tacit rather than being made explicit and shared with others. This means little conscious analysis is done of the learning that takes place in the room.
This is one of the reasons why Ovalhouse practitioners always work collaboratively. Not only does this enable one person to be consciously scanning the room while the other is leading an activity, it also enables each practitioner to take it in turns to reflect in what Schön47 describes as‘in’and‘on’action. It is this combination of‘thinking on one’s feet’in the room and being able to undertake a deeper exploration of‘why’certain decisions were made, or why they worked or didn’t work after the experience that enables us to progress consciously as learners. Learning to plan time for reflection after every session also enables us to engage with the ethics and values of this work: to question our actions and to see where they reflect our‘theories-in-use’ and where we may be compromising. In that way we can be sure we are taking what Freire identifies as ‘informed action’48 when we move forward.
Developing the habit of reflecting-on-action with a fellow practitioner or teacher enables us to explore what happened in much greater depth and allows us to develop a series of questions we can continually ask ourselves about our practice. In doing this we extend our repertoire by building up examples, ideas and actions that will not only be useful in future workshops but will enable us to gain greater insight into what worked and what didn’t.
Part of developing and deepening reflective practice is also to increase our knowledge of some of the theory behind the process of learning and some of the important and influential thinkers informing more participatory and transactional methodology. It is important for those who wish to work in a more participatory context to recognise it is not just what happens in the room that matters but the preparation and thinking that goes into it beforehand as well as the time taken to think about what happened after the session. Reading and analysing the work of thinkers such as Freire and Bell Hooks49 on more inclusive pedagogies or Dewey50 on experiential learning will enable teachers and practitioners to contextualise their own practice as part of the reflective process. It is the interrelationship between thinking before, during and after workshops that is key to genuinely reflective practice.
There is an inherent connection between Futures Stages and the Creating Change Network in terms of developing, learning and sharing practice. Part of the intention behind Creating Change is to try and offer smaller organisations, and individual teachers and practitioners, regular opportunities to share their workshop practice in this field. Ovalhouse might usefully extend this offer to give space where teachers and practitioners have opportunities to engage with the critical thinking that informs much of this practice.
6.5 Funders
Working with a process that is value-led and based in experience can often be difficult to explain to funders. This raises the question of how to identify flexible and participant-based outcomes before you start a project. Many funders require outcomes and impacts to be identified as well as delivery to be clearly outlined before starting and yet if original proposals are rigidly followed then there is little opportunity to learn or responsively and intuitively adapt or change direction. Some funders welcome adjustment though. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 32
7 Conclusions: Reflecting back and looking forward
Future Stages is part of an ongoing body of practice developed and delivered by Ovalhouse, informed by an ethical framework of values that are grounded in high quality participatory arts practice. The work of the programme in highlighting good practice, offering training and establishing the Creating Change Network, situates this practice within a wider sector, and seeks to extend, share and promote its value and impact. Articulating and advocating for this type of arts-based intervention is crucial given the current climate of austerity.
The Future Stages Programme has been genuinely developmental; it has sought to explore, learn and improve. In keeping with this the evaluation has adopted a similar approach, motivated by a desire to understand and reflect and record, providing a learning resource. It is hoped that this process will offer opportunities for ongoing dialogue and review that can strategically inform how the work is now taken forward.
“I thought that the project was a great success and key to this was the understanding, commitment, and engagement with applied theatre practices by Miss Emma. She was also respected by not only her students but by the supporting staff in our sessions enabling us to focus on the work rather than just the behaviour management of the students and staff. Each participant went on a steep learning curve throughout the project developing not only their communication skills, but working within a group setting, processes of devising, emotional literacy and of course their drama skills.” (Practitioner’s review)
7.1 Key Points
Here we summarise the emergent themes and key points arising from the evaluation of the programme.
Future Stages has been evidentially successful in its delivery, impact and crucially – learning. Its impact has been multi-layered, operating at an individual participant level as well as at an organisational and sectoral level. Whilst it is expected that this will continue to bear results beyond the lifetime of the current funding, there is no doubt that sustaining the work will require further resources.
The learning from the programme has highlighted key elements of good practice in relation to partnerships and project architecture, and of the practice itself. The clear articulation of this practice and the knowledge of what is needed to support it for maximum impact should provide a strong basis for seeking future funding.
Integral to the practice is the framework of values which underpins the work. Whilst there is a clear methodology this is not (and cannot be) prescriptive in terms of delivery. To be participative, tailored, and reflexive it has to be adaptable and flexible. As Aylwyn Walsh writes “These techniques demand that practitioners work from a basis of understanding group dynamics, interpersonal psychodynamics. A skill is also the ability to adapt – both during sessions and to use self-reflexivity to ensure that there is progress from session to session.”
The flexibility of the methodology and its delivery as we have seen in Future Stages, together with its relatively long timescale, has allowed adaptation to the different groups and environments as it has rolled out.
The good practice evidenced includes the building of strong organisational relationships; it is through collaborative partnerships that the practice can be facilitated to achieve full impact with benefits for all stakeholders and participants. This has been illustrated by the partnership between Ovalhouse and 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 33
Kennington Park Academy which has grown over the three years and is really starting to pay dividends and provides a solid platform for further consolidating the work.
The programme was well resourced with a focus on quality rather than quantity in terms of numbers of children engaged. This is necessary because of the high level needs of the children involved and the nature of the group work necessitated small group work with a high ratio of practitioners and staff. However we have also noted the importance of the architecture of the project for its success which includes resourcing aspects such as the planning, review and work with partners.
The Ovalhouse team has had good opportunities to consider in detail how best to deliver this work and has honed and adapted this as it has progressed. The attention to detail and the time given to the delivery both during and around the sessions are fundamental to the quality of the work.
Pick&Mix piloted the use of the method with a different surrounding structure. It undoubtedly faced a number of issues but this meant that a huge amount was learnt too. Perhaps what was lacking was
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 34
partnership; if there had been stronger partnerships involved (e.g. with schools, social services, parents and carers) then it would have had greater consistency and impact. It is suggested that Ovalhouse look at the basis for this session and think further about how it could be developed. It would be interesting to consider potential for work with the parents and carers too for example.
The INSETs and training delivered by the Ovalhouse practitioners were very successful; they were well attended and well received. There is distinct potential for income generation here that should be further explored. One of the PRUs and several universities paid for some of the INSETs and this is something that Ovalhouse could consider not just in terms of income but of extending and promoting their work as leaders in their field. The take up of the training and the responses from participants and schools have demonstrated that there is a market. It is worth noting that both PRU staff and practitioners think this is viable and that the Ovalhouse approach and methodology are distinctive and effective. There is a real need to find ways of working with ‘at risk’ children and young people that enables them to learn real skills in listening, empathy, team working and creative thinking. Ovalhouse is well placed to deliver this both within Applied Theatre courses and with units and schools.
The Creating Change Network has been successfully developed, and has initiated greater networking,
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 35
sharing and dissemination, however it will need resources and backing in order to be sustained. There is the danger of‘talking to ourselves”as there always is in this field and it is recommended that Creating Change thinks about‘pathways to influence’; that is how it might use its collective knowledge, kudos and voice to create opportunities for dialogue with policy makers and funders more widely. One thing it might consider is bringing some of the key players (within the network and funders, politicians, ACE etc.) to a round-table to share some of the findings of the evaluation report and ask for suggestions of ways to share the practice and take the work forward with a wider cohort.
7.2 Evaluative Practice
It is useful to reflect on the evaluation too in order to think about how interventions like Future Stages should be evaluated going forwards. Evaluation is resource intensive and therefore is always likely to be limited in terms of time and capacity, especially over extended projects. Some of the tools generated will be useful, either as they are or adapted to specific projects or funding requirements. Whilst tools need to be well designed and thus easy to use, what is more important is establishing the evaluation framework. This needs to set out the project aims and objectives against delivery plans and how feedback and information will be collected. Establishing this at the outset enables clarity of purpose and a baseline for review of progress. Digitalising data collection would assist with the ease of collection, consistency and review.
Where possible we recommend that evaluation is embedded in a programme where emergent findings are continually fed back through team review processes. This kind of exercise fits well with the Ovalhouse reflective practices and does not necessitate an external evaluator.
There are aspects that warrant further development. For example we would recommend further development of the young person’s self-assessment form which needs to be more visual and adapted to different age groups. Ideally we would suggest that future evaluation begins with stakeholder dialogue to establish and agree what success looks like and therefore what might be indicators of this, for the programme but also for individual children.
What a child has learnt or gained from the work may have impact outside of and beyond the scope of the programme or school and therefore of the evaluation, however there is little doubt that where the involvement was sustained the impact is greater. This is arguably the‘holy grail’of evaluation; that is tracing impact longitudinally over years whilst being able to accredit it to a specific intervention rather than a number of influences.
There is no single source of data and no absolute or prescriptive way of collecting information, and as with this evaluation, there are always limits in terms of time and resources. However we believe it is through drawing on multiple sources, both quantitative and qualitative, that the deepest picture of a project can be built and that reflection on this can assist learning, development and looking forwards.
7.3 Taking Practice Outwards – the future and the new Ovalhouse
“In 2017-18 Ovalhouse plans to move into a new theatre in the centre of Brixton. The theatre will be part of a major, locally run community development backed by Lambeth Council providing affordable living through social housing and job and training opportunities through social enterprises such as a chefs’ school. As the development’s ‘cultural anchor’ it will open up new opportunities for us to use the arts to enrich people’s lives – as audiences, participants and performers – and will strengthen our impact in tackling cultural, economic and social exclusion in areas of high deprivation by enabling us to extend Ovalhouse’s outreach and build new partnerships.” Deborah Bestwick, 2015 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 36
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 37
8 Appendix
A Insets and Training
YEAR 1
INSET 1 & 2: Ovalhouse Staff (March 2013): 11 Ovalhouse practitioners (two members of the FS team, seven freelance members of staff and two volunteers) attended a two-day workshop in Forum Theatre Techniques with Cardboard Citizens theatre company.
INSET 3: Summerhouse – Project Partner (February 2013): We have delivered two twilight INSETs for 15 education practitioners from Summerhouse PRU for their full staff team in February 2013 in Future Stages methodologies.
INSET 4: Kennington Park Bridge to School – Project Partner (February 2013): We have delivered two twilight INSETs for 15 education practitioners from Kennington Park Bridge to School in Future Stages methodologies.
“The INSET was constructive, revealing and energising. In two sessions an amazing amount of work was done. But in so doing revealed how much more could be addressed.” Yvonne Douglas: Deputy Head Kennington Park Bridge to School.
INSET 5 & 6: Non Arts Professionals (April 2013): We decided to offer these to a project partner this year as we felt additional investment in new partners would strengthen our outcomes – these were bespoke sessions and responded to identified need from the Deputy Head in non-confrontational behaviour management techniques and de-escalation used by Future Stages practitioners (see above quote). This training was paid for by Kennington Park Bridge to School and has generated income.
INSET 7: Arts Professionals (February 2013): Three Future Stages Tutors delivered a day’s training to 26 students currently studying on an MA course for arts practitioners training to use theatre and drama in the community and education settings or of using theatre and drama with people whose lives have been affected by the criminal justice system.The day-long training focused on Future Stages delivery and planning processes. It encouraged participants to not only think about appropriate activities to run with vulnerable groups but also the input required to plan and deliver in settings such asYouth Offending settings and PRUs. According to the evaluation 100% of participants indicated a positive impact in skill development and confidence.
INSET 8 & 9: (February 2013): Two Future Stages Tutors delivered training to 56 BA students. The students were in their second and third year of training and are interested in studying and applying the practice and theory of drama and theatre within a range of social, community and educational contexts. It is one of the most well established courses in the country for such work and their graduates lead the field in applied theatre internationally. Future Stages were invited to design and deliver two half-day trainings in using the arts in Primary PRUs. According to the evaluation forms 100% of those who took part indicated a positive impact in skill development and confidence.
INSET 10: Future Stages Staff Team: Kennington Park Bridge to School have partnership relationships with a number of outside agencies including Social Services. Ovalhouse Future Stages Tutors were invited to attend training in Attachment Disorders and how this impacts on a child’s interactions. Three members of the team were able to attend. This INSET was informative and highlighted the success of using some of the Future Stages techniques with children. It also made us reflect on some behaviour management techniques for specific children. 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 38
INSET 11: London Drama INSET (April 2013): Future Stages disseminated its methodology at a London Drama conference to 25 people. London Drama aimed to bring together a diverse range of Drama, Theatre and Performing Arts teachers and practitioners, who are currently involved in the field of education, from London and beyond in order to enable links and put you in touch with one another to share current projects and practice.
YEAR 2
INSET 1: Ovalhouse Staff (January 2014): 20 Truth about Youth and Future Stages practitioners and core CreativeYouth staff attended a one-dayYoung Person Mental Health Training delivered by the charityYoung Minds.
INSET 2: Safeguarding Training: 28 members of core staff and practitioners completed the Lambeth Safeguarding Level 1 training and in addition, Director of Participation and Head of Arts Inclusion undertook a one-day training course on Level 2 Safeguarding. The Head of Arts Inclusion attended a two-day Team Teach accredited training in De-escalation and Positive Handling skills.
INSET 3: Ovalhouse Staff (2013 – 14): Six members of the Future Stages team attended Arts Award training in Explore and Discover, to become arts Award Advisors – this was to support the delivery of the optional Arts Award.
INSET 4 & 5: (Non Arts Professionals) Kennington Park Bridge to School – Project Partner (June 2014): We have delivered two twilight INSETs for 15 education practitioners from Kennington Park Bridge to School in Future Stages methodologies (screen printing and in role).
INSET 6: (Non Arts Professionals): In partnership with Phakama, we engaged 14 young adults entering an internship in the arts and delivered training on ethical leadership.
INSET 7: (Non arts professionals): 14 Youth Workers from Germany were engaged in a one-day training on ethical leadership and introducing drama structures with vulnerable young people in July 2014.
INSET 8: (Non arts professionals): The Director of Participation delivered two half-day trainings to 20 students currently studying on an Applied Theatre Masters at Goldsmiths College. The training focused on ethical leadership with vulnerable groups.
INSET 9: Arts Professionals (February 2013): The Director of Participation and Head of Arts Inclusion delivered training to 30 BA students in March 2014. The students were in their third year of training and are interested in studying and applying the practice and theory of drama and theatre within a range of social, community and educational contexts. It is one of the most well established courses in the country for such work and their graduates lead the field in applied theatre internationally.
YEAR 3
INSET 1: Ovalhouse Staff: 12 staff attended the two-day accredited training De-escalation and the Safe Handling of children provided by Team Teach. (External Provider)
INSET 2: Safeguarding Training: Five core staff completed Safeguarding Level 3 provided by the London Borough of Lambeth. Project Manager of Arts Inclusion attended Working withYoung People with Drugs and Alcohol abuse issues and was also trained in Mental Health First Aid (External Provider) along with the Pastoral Care Officer.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 39
INSET 3: Ovalhouse Staff: Two staff members attended Motivational Interviewing by the London Borough of Lambeth and in addition, Project Manager of Arts Inclusion attended Working withYoung People affiliated with Gangs Conference.
INSET 4 & 5: (Non Arts Professionals) Kennington Park Academy – Project Partner (October 2014 and March 2015): We created two bespoke INSET trainings for education practitioners from Kennington Park Academy in Future Stages methodologies. One was using drama techniques in the classroom as a tool for creative learning, safe environment and positive group dynamic and engaged 15 school staff. The other was on conflict resolution techniques and engaged 18 staff. (Delivered by Ovalhouse)
INSET 6 & 7: Non Arts Professionals (October & November 2014): The Director of Participation delivered the training Ethics and Working with Vulnerable Young People to 20 professionals studying BA Applied Theatre at the University of East London and 20 MA students at Goldsmiths University.
INSET 8: Arts Professionals (December 2014): Ovalhouse’s national conference Creating Links disseminated the Back on Track / Future Stages methodology to 123 people working with young people at risk. The day featured 10 workshops and presentations by leading arts and cultural organisations.
B Examples of individual baseline summaries 2014-2015
Pick&Mix • Age 8 • Looked after child • ADHD • Baseline reveals low resilience, difficulties concentrating and to improve empathy.
PRU (from one-to-ones and teacher comments) • 11 years • No trust • Doesn’t forget the mistakes of others, discussed holding grudges • Couldn’t think of things to chuck out of balloon51 – didn’t want to think about it • Not wanting to show happy or sad emotions • Independent – says“I don’t need anybody” • Brands things as boring, energy low, withdrawn • Interest in boxing • Quiet, subdued • Autistic spectrum: mum doesn’t want assessment for official statement.
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 40
C Engagement Matrix and Session Log
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 41
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 42
D Endnotes
1 http://www.ovalhouse.com/participation/future-stages 2 Augusto Boal was a Brazilian theatre director, writer and politician who founded of Theatre of the Oppressed, a theatrical form used in radical popular education movements. 3 Dorothy Heathcote was a drama teacher and academic who used the method of Teacher in Role and Mantle of the Expert as approaches to teaching across the curriculum in schools and other settings. 4 http://www.ovalhouse.com/participation/creatingchange 5 The Future Stages Programme was funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, The KPMG Foundation and the Equitable Charitable Trust 6 The Creating Change Network was initiated by Ovalhouse with the first meeting taking place in June . It has been developing since then with a growing national membership, information sharing, and meetings of core members and hosted its first conference in December . 7 http://creating-change.org.uk/resources/ovalhouse-future-stages-programme-case-study 8 Educational Diversity: the subject of difference and different subjects’(Y. Taylor, Ed) Palgrave MacMillan . Inclusion through exclusion: a critical account of new behaviour management practices in schools. Val Gillies Families & Social Capital Group London South Bank University. 9 Research by the Social Exclusion Unit has shown that while the majority of excluded pupils are white, male teenagers, children with special educational needs are six times more likely than the average to be excluded, children in care are ten times more likely to be excluded, and children of Afro-Caribbean origin are six times more likely. Exclusions are consistently higher in areas of economic deprivation. See http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/exclusion-of-pupils 10 YJB () ‘Barriers to Engagement in Education, Training and Employment’. London: Youth Justice Board. 11 See Cooper et al (: ). Also see Arts Alliance () ‘What Really Works?: Arts with Offenders’. London: Clinks. 12 Burton, B. () ‘Dramatising the Hidden Hurt: Acting Against Covert Bullying by Adolescent Girls.’Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. (): pp. -. And Cooper, K., Sutherland, A. & Roberts, C. () ‘Keeping Young People Engaged: Improving Education, Training and Employment for Serious and Persistent Young Offenders’London: Youth Justice Board (: ). 13 Some of these pointers are taken from Rideout, : . Criminal Justice: An Artist’s Guide. London: Arts Alliance. 14 For valuable insight into this cohort, see Johnston, C. () Drama Games For Those Who Like to Say No. London: Nick Hern Books. 15 From ‘Creating Change, Imagining Futures: Participatory Arts and Young People ‘At Risk’by Alwyn Walsh 16 ‘Many children become involved in crime because of intense peer pressure, which often shows itself in the form of bullying or marginalisation’. McCarthy et al (). 17 Turner, Jane. ()‘Making Amends: An interventionist theatre programme with young offenders’,Research in Drama Education, (): pp. – . 18 See CUCR discussion paper ‘Creating Change, Imagining Futures: Participatory Arts and Young People ‘At Risk’by Awlyn Walsh for further discussion. Available at http://creating-change.org.uk/resources/creatingchange-imagining-futures-participatory-arts-and-young-people- 1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 43
19 http://creating-change.org.uk/inspiration/second-core-network-meeting See page Story of Change chart. 20 http://creating-change.org.uk/inspiration/creating-change-film 21 SWOT analysis of Creating Change Executive Summary document 22 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/browse-advice-and-guidance/great-art-and-cultureeveryone 23 https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/the-ethics-of-participatory-theatre.pdf 24 See Augusto Boal, Theatre of Oppressed, () London, Pluto and Games for Actors and Non-ActorsLondon: Routledge (). 25 Barnes, S : ) http://www.dianaprincessofwalesmemorialfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Oval%House%Young- Refugee-Essays.pdf 26 Stella Barnes. Evaluation Interview. 27 See Barnes in http://www.ovalhouse.com/participation/publication/participatory_arts_with_young_refugees 28 From Paul Hamlyn Report -, Ovalhouse – Future Stages 29 Paul Hamlyn Report -, Ovalhouse – Future Stages 30 Pick&Mix concluded at this point, however the sessions in the PRU continued until June . The evaluation set the Easter holidays as the point at which it stopped collecting data, however the figures for sessions, participants, etc. do include the whole programme of delivery up to June . 31 The Teacher in Role method was developed by Dorothy Heathcote 32 ‘Mantle of the Expert’is a student-centred dramatic-inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning invented and developed by Professor Dorothy Heathcote at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in the s 33 Arts Awards are a range of qualifications that any young person aged up to can gain, based around any arts or media activity. For more information see http://www.artsaward.org.uk/ 34 Stockwell Good Neighbours Project is a registered charity for older people living in the Lambeth area. For more information see - http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/places/stockwell-good-neighbours 35 http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder/Pages/Introduction.aspx 36 http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/puberty/pages/complications.aspx 37 Teacher in Role as a Methodology: an examination of the Ovalhouse Future Stages Programme, Chrissie Tiller, CUCR, 38 In one of the PRUs the delivery of sessions was at times affected by change of staff, pupils being excluded and sessions cancelled due to changing school schedules. 39 For more information on the use of ritual in the work of Dorothy Heathcote see the Dorothy Heathcote Archive at http://www.did.stu.mmu.ac.uk/dha/hcheston.asp 40 Creating Change, Imagining Futures: Participatory Arts and Young People ‘At Risk’, Future Stages Discussion Paper, Aylwyn Walsh, CUCR, 41 See ACE () ‘Access, Participation and Progression in the Arts for Young People on Detention and Training Orders: Research Report ’. London: Arts Council England; and TIPP () ‘What’s the Point?: Using Drama to Engage Young People at Risk’. Manchester: Arts Council England, North West. 42 It should be noted that this has only been possible with some of the groups given that data collecting using the tested tools began in Autumn . 43 One of the PRU groups attended sessions at Ovalhouse 44 Heathcote D. and Bolton, G. () Drama for Learning. Heinemann, London 45 O’Neill C., () Drama Worlds, Heinemann Drama, London 46 See above 47 Sch.n D., () The Reflective Practitioner; How Professionals Think in Action Basic Books 48 Freire P., () Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum International Publishing Group 49 Hooks B., () Teaching to Transgress: Education as a Practice of Freedom, Routledge 50 Dewey J., () Democracy and Education: an introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Free Press () The Reflective Practitioner; How Professionals Think in Action Basic Books 51 The balloon is a discursive and visual / text activity that the Ovalhouse practitioners use as a vehicle for talking with each young person about their likes and dislikes, and also aspirations. See image on page .
1616-Taking-Risks-design-13:Layout 1 18/1/16 16:52 Page 44
© Ovalhouse