ECER 2023: Systemic assessment for safety and security culture in schools
Tapahtuma:
ECER 2023 22.-25.8.2023, Glasgow, Skotlanti.
Otsikko:
Systemic assessment for safety and security culture in schools – Implementing Hudson’s ladder through focus group interview data
Tekijät:
B. Somerkoski, E. Lindfors, J. Kokki, J-P. Peltola, E. Luukka
Abstrakti:
Violence and bullying amongst youth have aroused political concern in Finland and in Europe (Cornell et al., 2020; Smith, 2016; Williams et al., 2018) to the extent that in Finland Prime Minister Sanna Marin´s government (Valtioneuvosto, 2019) has stipulated measures to prevent violence, bullying and harassment to develop a better safety culture in schools. (Bradshaw et al., 2014; Vallinkoski & Koirikivi, 2020). According to the Finnish Basic Education Act, responsibility within the schoolday falls unequivocally on the teachers and principals (Basic Education Act, 628/1998).
Researchers see safety culture as a part of an organization´s culture that relates to knowledge, skills and attitudes concerning safety (Biggs et al., 2013;Teperi et al.; 2018;Waitinen, 2011). Earlier studies have shown that the safety guidelines laid down at macro level are better implemented at micro level if the management of meso level actors – are active and visible (Bellibas & Liu, 2018; Zohar, 2002). A positive safety culture can result in improved workplace wellbeing and safety. A precondition for effective safety culture is that the organization shares the actions and documents with each other (Teperi et al., 2018, 2021.)
Although organizational safety culture has been widely researched within industrial organizations, there are very few studies regarding the safety culture of schools. The role of schools is multidimensional as schools need to provide a curriculum-based safety education for pupils. Secondly, in schools, the age distribution is heterogeneous including adults who are responsible for a group of young children (Somerkoski & Lindfors, 2018). Moreover, an analysis of the organization’s safety culture is not unambiguous; safety is often non-visible until it is lost (Hollnagel, 2017).
The study aims to establish an applicable method to assess an organization´s safety culture by making safety culture topics visible and reachable for every school. As part of the ONNI – Success in School Safety -project 2022–2023 on comprehensive school safety, the project researchers have created a pilot model, Systemic assessment model for safety and security culture in schools (SAMS). In order to answer the research question How to evaluate safety culture in Finnish comprehensive schools by applying the SAMS model? we analysed the semi-structured focus group interview data using theory-driven content analysis.
Further on, we implemented the model by grouping the topics to describe the most common features of a school’s security culture (e.g. Vallinkoski & Koirikivi, 2020; Smith, 2016) These topics were safety management, documents, responsibilities, the detection of safety deviations, the processing of safety deviations, practical training, safety competence, resources, the prevention of bullying and harassment, the prevention of violence and crimes, cooperation with stakeholders, and participation. We assessed each of these topics by implementing and applying the Hudson (2007) safety ladder model by grouping each of the topics into five levels: vulnerable, reactive, normative, proactive and resilient.
At the vulnerable level of safety culture, deviations cannot be anticipated, but if they occur, they will be managed on a case-by-case basis. The security culture is dominated by randomness and situationality. At the reactive safety culture level, hazard situations are addressed after they occur. The requirements of normative safety culture level are based on the contents on the normative documents such as the curriculum or legislation. In the hazard situation, the regulations described in these documents are implemented. At the proactive safety culture level, school staff has identified human-induced near-miss and risky situations and there is a clear concept of how to handle the deviations. Finally, at the resilient safety culture level, the safety aspect is linked to all decision-making as a whole. By systematic action, deviations can be managed together. students, staff, and stakeholders are involved in the promotion of safety.
Lähteet:
Basic Education Act (1998). Finlex 628/1998.
Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International journal of leadership in education, 21(2), 226-244.
Biggs, S. E., Banks, T. D., Davey, J. D., & Freeman, J. E. (2013). Safety leaders’ perceptions of safety culture in a large Australasian construction organisation. Safety science, 52, 3-12.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Debnam, K. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2014). Measuring school climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. Journal of School Health, 84(9), 593-604.
Cornell, D. G., Mayer, M. J., & Sulkowski, M. L. (2020). History and future of school safety research. School psychology review, 50(2-3), 143-157.
Finnish Government (2019). Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 2019. Inclusive and competent Finland – a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable society. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-programme
Hollnagel, E. (2017). Safety-I and Safety-II The Past and Future of Safety Management. Taylor & Francis.
Hudson, P. (2007). Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Safety science, 45(6), 697-722.
Smith, P. K. (2016). Research on bullying in schools in European countries. School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and western perspectives, 1-27.
Somerkoski, B. & Lindfors, E. Koulun ulkopuoliset turvallisuusasiantuntijat opetustyön tukena. Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia, 265. [External experts supporting safety education in schools Subject didactics]
Teperi, A.-M., Lindfors, E., Kurki, A.-L., Somerkoski, B., Ratilainen, H., Tiikkaja, M., Uusitalo, H., Lantto, E., & Pajala, R. (2018). Turvallisuuden edistäminen opetusalalla: Edusafe-projektin loppuraportti (9522618195).
Teperi, A.-M., Ruotsala, R., Ala-Laurinaho, A., Asikainen, I., Lantto, E., & Paajanen, T. (2021). Inhimilliset tekijät turvallisuudessa: interventioiden vaikutukset ja toimivuus. Työterveyslaitos.2021.https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/141064
Waitinen, M. (2011). Turvallinen koulu?: Helsinkiläisten peruskoulujen turvallisuuskulttuurista ja siihen vaikuttavista tekijöistä. Helsingin yliopiston Opettajankoulutuslaitoksen tutkimuksia 334.
Vallinkoski, K. & Koirikivi, P.-M. (2020). Enhancing Finnish basic education schools’ safety culture through comprehensive safety and security management. Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, 6(2), 103-115.
Williams, S., Schneider, M., Wornell, C., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2018). Student’s perceptions of school safety: It is not just about being bullied. The Journal of School Nursing, 34(4), 319-330.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(1), 75-92.
Lisätietoa: